# NHS implants birth control without consent or knowlege...



## billc (Feb 8, 2012)

The British National Health Service implanted birth control chemicals in teenage girls without their parents knowledge or consent...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girls-13-get-secret-birth-control-676673



> Girls as young as 13 have been injected with contraceptive implants at school without their parents&#8217; knowledge.
> The controversial procedure was carried out on pupils to cut underage pregnancies in one city.
> It is unknown how many teenagers have taken part in the scheme at the nine secondary schools.
> But the revelation has caused outrage among some parents who were unaware their daughters were fitted with the 4cm device which is implanted under the skin.
> Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, blasted: &#8220;Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.



Are the facts in this accurate?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2012)

I don't know anything about this in the UK, but there was that ugly little eugenics episode in the US back in the 1950s and later.  A lot of "feeble minded" girls (actually simply low-income and often of African American heritage) who were judged as "promiscuous" (often meaning they were raped, in some cases by their own fathers) and were forcibly sterilized, often without the girl realizing what they had done to them.

It's an ugly thing, no matter where it might be happening.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 8, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know anything about this in the UK, but there was that ugly little eugenics episode in the US back in the 1950s and later.  A lot of "feeble minded" girls (actually simply low-income and often of African American heritage) who were judged as "promiscuous" (often meaning they were raped, in some cases by their own fathers) and were forcibly sterilized, often without the girl realizing what they had done to them.
> 
> It's an ugly thing, no matter where it might be happening.



Um, did you actually read the article? There is absolutely nothing in it that has anything whatsoever to do with eugenics. It's purely about providing contraceptives to minors. Personally, I am in favor of providing effective contraception to anybody who wants it, but would like to think they're also providing condoms, since implanted contraceptives do nothing to protect from STDs.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Um, did you actually read the article? There is absolutely nothing in it that has anything whatsoever to do with eugenics. It's purely about providing contraceptives to minors. Personally, I am in favor of providing effective contraception to anybody who wants it, but would like to think they're also providing condoms, since implanted contraceptives do nothing to protect from STDs.




Oh ****!!!  I only read the exerpt, and completel MIS-read what was there.  wow.  my bad.  

thanks for catching that for me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The British National Health Service implanted birth control chemicals in teenage girls without their parents knowledge or consent...
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/girls-13-get-secret-birth-control-676673
> 
> Are the facts in this accurate?



Might be.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...th-control-parental-consent-article-1.1019084

However, from what I've read, there are no laws controlling distributing birth control to minors without parental consent in the US, either.  I don't know if it is commonly done.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 8, 2012)

Precisely, *DD*.  Whilst I am much more in favour of young teenage girls not cavorting about making the 'beast with two backs', for the reason that their physical capability to do so is in advance of their emotional capability to deal with the consequences, it is far better to take some action to help prevent those consequences than to trust to luck.  

To elaborate on this issue in a wider temporal context, Family Planning clinics have been tasked with assisting in this regard for decades, it is the more 'modern' method that has caught the eye of the press at this juncture, just as did the Pill when it was new.  

It is a shame that those in need of the assistance all too often do not seek it until it is too late and that their too-tender years are matched by the similar age of their 'partners' (meaning that these boys are all too keen to wield their 'manhood' without a thought of taking on the mantle and responsibilities of being a 'father').


----------



## granfire (Feb 8, 2012)

well, if they had taken on the mantle of responsibilities they would not be father...


Ah, bad joke. I quit while I am not too far behind.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

So the with out parents knowledge does not bother you?  So when you daughter has a reaction to the BC and you have no idea what's wrong and she's to afraid or cant tell you what happened thats ok?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So the with out parents knowledge does not bother you?  So when you daughter has a reaction to the BC and you have no idea what's wrong and she's to afraid or cant tell you what happened thats ok?



Spurious, pointless, and downright silly. If she's not willing to talk to you about the contraception in the (rare) event of an adverse reaction, she for SURE isn't going to discuss contraception with you under any other circumstances.
In any case, that's but one of many reasons why we routinely talk to minor patients AWAY from their parents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

I think it is a difficult question.  For males, providing contraception is a prophylactic.  Unless he's got a latex allergy, he's not going to die of it.  He won't suffer long-term health risks.

For a female, it's not that simple.  Birth control pills, and injected or implanted devices or chemicals, could represent a medical threat immediately or far down the road in the future.

We talk about informed consent; we don't let children drink, get tattoos, and we require parental consent for immunization for diseases.  I'm not sure giving female children surgical procedures to prevent pregnancy is a great idea without parental consent; or at the very least, parental notification.

And frankly, I'm not even sure public schools should be in the business of providing contraceptives in the first place.  In what way are they qualified medical providers?  When I went to school, we had a 'school nurse', but certainly no prescribing doctor on staff, and most schools I'm aware of don't have nurses anymore.

Personally, I would find this act in itself reason enough to withdraw a child from that school.  _"Let me get this straight.  If my daughter comes to you and says she wants to receive an injection providing birth control protection, you will give it to her, and  you will not seek my permission nor notify me?"  "That is correct."  "And if I ask you if my daughter is receiving birth control from you, you will not tell me?"  "That is correct."  "OK, see ya."_


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is a difficult question.  For males, providing contraception is a prophylactic.  Unless he's got a latex allergy, he's not going to die of it.  He won't suffer long-term health risks.



Implanted contraceptives ARE prophylactics. You're thinking of condoms, which are only ONE sort of prophylatic.




Bill Mattocks said:


> For a female, it's not that simple.  Birth control pills, and injected or implanted devices or chemicals, could represent a medical threat immediately or far down the road in the future.



Maybe, possibly, it's conceivable. But an unplanned pregnancy and/or an STD WILL represent a threat. Absolutely. No doubt about it.



Bill Mattocks said:


> We talk about informed consent; we don't let children drink, get tattoos, and we require parental consent for immunization for diseases.  I'm not sure giving female children surgical procedures to prevent pregnancy is a great idea without parental consent; or at the very least, parental notification.



Immunizations are done in infant/childhood. If a 13 year old wants to be vaccinated, they can be.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And frankly, I'm not even sure public schools should be in the business of providing contraceptives in the first place.  In what way are they qualified medical providers?  When I went to school, we had a 'school nurse', but certainly no prescribing doctor on staff, and most schools I'm aware of don't have nurses anymore.
> 
> Personally, I would find this act in itself reason enough to withdraw a child from that school.  _"Let me get this straight.  If my daughter comes to you and says she wants to receive an injection providing birth control protection, you will give it to her, and  you will not seek my permission nor notify me?"  "That is correct."  "And if I ask you if my daughter is receiving birth control from you, you will not tell me?"  "That is correct."  "OK, see ya."_



Spurious, pointless and downright silly. The school isn't providing the contraception. The National Health Service (the same people who provide all the other health care) is. In your hometown, Bill, if your daughter goes to her health care provider, or the city/county health department, or planned parenthood, or any of a number of other places, she can ask for contraception and she will be given it. 

And if she's going to be sexually active, then it's far far better that she use contraception than not.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

After reading the posts in this thread, I find myself in agreement with DD.  Now, as I've said before, someone needs to teach kids about sex.  If someone thinks that its not necessary or that it 'wont happen to my child' then, I'm sorry, but those folks are living in fantasy land.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Implanted contraceptives ARE prophylactics. You're thinking of condoms, which are only ONE sort of prophylatic.



Fair point, but since you know what I meant, then you understand what I meant.  There's a world of difference between handing a boy a French Letter and giving a girl an injection in terms of physical risk.  Sorry I used a word you find imprecise.



> Maybe, possibly, it's conceivable. But an unplanned pregnancy and/or an STD WILL represent a threat. Absolutely. No doubt about it.



I'm not arguing that.  But I would suggest that a child's parents have a right to know when their child is subjected to such risk.  Perhaps they might register an objection; as I believe is their right.



> Immunizations are done in infant/childhood. If a 13 year old wants to be vaccinated, they can be.



I'm not sure you're making a point here.  It doesn't really matter when the child gets an immunization.  The point is, they don't get one without parental knowledge and consent; at least not here in the US to the best of my knowledge.  If we require parental consent for an immunization, I don't see what's wrong with requiring it for contraception, especially implanted chemical forms.



> Spurious, pointless and downright silly. The school isn't providing the contraception. The National Health Service (the same people who provide all the other health care) is. In your hometown, Bill, if your daughter goes to her health care provider, or the city/county health department, or planned parenthood, or any of a number of other places, she can ask for contraception and she will be given it.



I'm not sure that's true; but if it is, I'm certain I don't agree with it.  And that was what I was saying; this is my opinion, and I'm quite certain I'm entitled to have one.



> And if she's going to be sexually active, then it's far far better that she use contraception than not.



And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers.  As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.

I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not.  If that's your opinion, so mote it be.  It is not my opinion.  I won't call yours* silly, spurious, or pointless*; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

MJS said:


> After reading the posts in this thread, I find myself in agreement with DD.  Now, as I've said before, someone needs to teach kids about sex.  If someone thinks that its not necessary or that it 'wont happen to my child' then, I'm sorry, but those folks are living in fantasy land.



Fantasy land or not, is it the state's job to teach it?  And if it is, is it also the state's job to provide surgical procedures ensuring no pregnancy will result? And if it is, is it also the state's job to not only not seek the parent's permission, but to deny knowledge of it to the parents if asked?  I think even if you agree that the state has a right to teach sex education, the rest is a step too far.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 1) And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers.  As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.
> 
> 2) I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not.  If that's your opinion, so mote it be.  It is not my opinion.  I won't call yours* silly, spurious, or pointless*; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.



I know you're directing this to DD, but I'd like to comment.  

1) Point taken.  Question: when you were a child, did you always adhere to the choices that your parents made for you, or did you try to get away with things behind their back?

2) Like I said, someone should be teaching the kids.  A parent, a doctor, a nurse, someone from the church the family belongs to, etc.  IMO, the more people say that its bad, that you shouldn't do this, and so forth, the more curiosity is going to be raised.  I'd rather my son/daughter be educated and prepared, than have them come to me and say they're pregnant/or got someone pregnant.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fantasy land or not, is it the state's job to teach it?  And if it is, is it also the state's job to provide surgical procedures ensuring no pregnancy will result? And if it is, is it also the state's job to not only not seek the parent's permission, but to deny knowledge of it to the parents if asked?  I think even if you agree that the state has a right to teach sex education, the rest is a step too far.



See my other post.  As for the state providing services...well, they already do....all at the expense of the taxpayer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

MJS said:


> I know you're directing this to DD, but I'd like to comment.
> 
> 1) Point taken.  Question: when you were a child, did you always adhere to the choices that your parents made for you, or did you try to get away with things behind their back?



I tried to get away with everything I could.  And as soon as I knew what it was for, I tried to get a leg over as soon as I could.  Does that mean the state should be my co-conspirator?  I may have fooled my parents; does that mean the state should help me fool them?



> 2) Like I said, someone should be teaching the kids.  A parent, a doctor, a nurse, someone from the church the family belongs to, etc.  IMO, the more people say that its bad, that you shouldn't do this, and so forth, the more curiosity is going to be raised.  I'd rather my son/daughter be educated and prepared, than have them come to me and say they're pregnant/or got someone pregnant.



I can accept that.  What I can't accept is that you can make the decision to turn that choice over to the state for MY children, even if you want it for yours.  I don't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I feel you should have the state do the work for you.  You seem to feel that if YOU think it's a good idea for you, it's also a good idea for me, and should even be the law.

Since you're so OK with your child having birth control given by the school, I can imagine you'd have no trouble if they asked for your permission.  But you'd deny me the right to be asked for my permission regarding my own children?

I could imagine a compromise.  Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out.  In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill.  If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so.  Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision.  That would work for me; how about you?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair point, but since you know what I meant, then you understand what I meant.  There's a world of difference between handing a boy a French Letter and giving a girl an injection in terms of physical risk.  Sorry I used a word you find imprecise.



It's not a matter of me finding it imprecise. The meaning of the word makes it incorrect. You're usually better about things like that.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure you're making a point here.  It doesn't really matter when the child gets an immunization.  The point is, they don't get one without parental knowledge and consent; at least not here in the US to the best of my knowledge.  If we require parental consent for an immunization, I don't see what's wrong with requiring it for contraception, especially implanted chemical forms.



I'm  sorry, I thought it was obvious; the point is that infants really cannot make a decision. A 13 year old can. Not always a GOOD one, but a decision none the less. And if she's making the decision to be sexually active, and, for whatever reason, cannot discuss the issue of contraception with her parents, then it's far better that she be able to get it from someone else, rather than be subjected to an unplanned pregnancy and/or STD.
Of course, you CAN (to some extent) control a minors access to tatto and alcohol. You don't really think you can control their access to sexual partners, do you?



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure that's true; but if it is, I'm certain I don't agree with it.  And that was what I was saying; this is my opinion, and I'm quite certain I'm entitled to have one.



Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. But the fact is, your daughter CAN get contraceptives at any number of places, right here in the US. You certainly don't have to agree with it, but that is the way it is. By all means, teach your children your moral code, and do everything you reasonably can to convince them to abide by it. I'm  behind you 100% in that. But if/when they decide to become sexually active, then, like it or not, it's best that they use contraception.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And my opinion is that's not your choice to make; nor hers.  As a parent of a minor child, it would be mine and her mother's.



Really? It is? And would you please enlighten the rest of the world on how YOU are going to decide if SHE is going to be sexually active?  And how, exactly, do you support the idea that it's better for this sexually active minor NOT to use contraception?

The fact is that it's NOT up to you. It's up to her, regardless of what any of us may think of her choice. And if she's going to be sexually active, [see above].



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm very uncomfortable with this wholesale move towards believing the state has rights over our bodies and over the bodies of our children that we as individuals and parents do not.  If that's your opinion, so mote it be.  It is not my opinion.  I won't call yours* silly, spurious, or pointless*; kindly refrain from being insulting if you wish to discuss this.



Again, I thought context made it obvious; what is spurious, pointless and downright silly is your comments about schools providing medical care, when it is painfully obvious that they are NOT. You might as well have commented that schools should not be providing atomic bombs to students, since they're not doing that either, and it would be every bit as applicable to the issue.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I could imagine a compromise.  Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out.  In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill.  If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so.  Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision.  That would work for me; how about you?



That will work for me, just as soon as you can come up with a way to prevent them from having sex. An effective way, mind you, not just saying "don't do it!" since that has been shown over the couple thousand years, to be ineffective.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I tried to get away with everything I could.  And as soon as I knew what it was for, I tried to get a leg over as soon as I could.  Does that mean the state should be my co-conspirator?  I may have fooled my parents; does that mean the state should help me fool them?



Maybe I should've kept these are 1 question, but I think what I was trying to say here, applies to what I said in #2 as well.  Putting the state aside, my main point was that the more parents say no no no, the more kids will be tempted.  Why are they saying no?  What is this sex stuff they dont want me to know about?  





> I can accept that.  What I can't accept is that you can make the decision to turn that choice over to the state for MY children, even if you want it for yours.  I don't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I feel you should have the state do the work for you.  You seem to feel that if YOU think it's a good idea for you, it's also a good idea for me, and should even be the law.
> 
> Since you're so OK with your child having birth control given by the school, I can imagine you'd have no trouble if they asked for your permission.  But you'd deny me the right to be asked for my permission regarding my own children?
> 
> I could imagine a compromise.  Let's say the default is "I am OK with you giving my child contraceptives" unless a parent opts-out.  In other words, if a parent says nothing, then give the kid the rubbers or put them on the pill.  If the parent informs the school that they cannot do so, then they cannot do so.  Concerned parents can file their objections prior to the school year; schools would abide by that decision.  That would work for me; how about you?



I dont have to worry about the state.  Why?  Well, first off, my wife and I don't have kids, but if we did, I'd make sure that we explained things to them.  Hey, if they school requires sex ed, thats fine too.  Go ahead..teach away..lol.  Actually Bill, to be honest with you, what I hate to see, is all these kids having kids.  Were they taught about sex but just chose to disregard the lessons....or were they never taught, decided to experiment, and now they're stuck with a kid?

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter to me if the school handed out condoms or not....I'd rather give them the things myself, with the know-how to use it, and be safe, rather than have them come to me and tell me I'm going to be a Grandpa. 

I may be wrong, but it seems your beef is with the state/schools doing what you'd rather do.  Am I correct?  If so, I'm cool with that, but again, kids need to be taught.  IMO, people fooling themselves into thinking that it wont happen, is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm bowing out now. It's clear we disagree. The state does not, or should not, in my opinion, have the right to disperse birth control to children without the consent of their parents. The argument in favor essentially seem to center around the notion that teen pregnancy is bad. It is bad. I just do not agree that because it is bad, the state has the right to supersede the rights of the parents. I doubt I'll find myself changing that basic position, and so, goodnight to all.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

Option 1: Have the state or someone else (see my posts for who) teach sex ed.

Option 2: Have the parents do it.

Option 3: Have nobody do it.

I dont know about anyone else but IMO, option 3 sucks and option 2 is on the fence, depending on how its done.  So, what happens if the parents say, "Nobody is doing it but me.....but I'm not going to, because sex is something that should only be done between 2 people who understand it."  Its like taking a gun, putting 1 round in, putting it to your head, pulling the trigger, and hoping that you dont get shot.  At some point, you're bound to get your friggin head blown off.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Spurious, pointless, and downright silly.


Whats silly?  Noroplant is the #1 brand of implants look at a list of side effects:
[h=3]Cardiovascular[/h]Cardiovascular side effects have included hypertension.
[h=3]Dermatologic[/h]Dermatologic side effects have included acne and other skin disorders.
[h=3]Gastrointestinal[/h]Gastrointestinal side effects have included abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
[h=3]Genitourinary[/h]Genitourinary side effects have included leukorrhea, vaginitis, dysmenorrhea, breast pain, abnormal pap smear and decreased libido. Very common adverse reactions (greater than 1 in 10 users) include uterine/vaginal bleeding (including spotting, irregular bleeding, heavy bleeding, oligomenorrhea and amenorrhea) and ovarian cysts.
[h=3]Nervous system[/h]Nervous system side effects have included headache, dizziness and nervousness.
[h=3]Respiratory[/h]Respiratory side effects have included upper respiratory infection and sinusitis.
[h=3]General[/h]General side effects have included weight gain and fatigue.
[h=3]Psychiatric[/h]Psychiatric side effects have included depression.
[h=3]Musculoskeletal[/h]Musculoskeletal side effects have included back pain.
[h=3]Other[/h]Other side effects have included postmarketing reports of device breakage and angioedema


> If she's not willing to talk to you about the contraception in the (rare) event of an adverse reaction, she for SURE isn't going to discuss contraception with you under any other circumstances.


You told your parents everything you did as a child I know I didnt.  



> In any case, that's but one of many reasons why we routinely talk to minor patients AWAY from their parents.


Not my kids you wont or you would have a major problem on your hands.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

And that list of side effects is on adults I would bet there were not many studies done on the use of BC on still developing children.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 8, 2012)

MJS said:


> Well, first off, my wife and I don't have kids.



And if you did I would bet your thinking would change.  Mine did.  I see the world alot differently now then I did when I was kidless.


----------



## billc (Feb 8, 2012)

It is hard for me to see how people are so willing to let a nameless bureaucrat make a decision that affects your children.  How did the government bureaucrat decide on which chemical to use?  Is it because some politician recieved campaign cash from the drug company and since he sits on the child healthcare committee the decision was based on the size of the campaign donation?  How do you know they are applying the right dosage for your child?  Do they have access to your child's complete medical history and allergy list?  If your child is having sex, perhaps if someone informed the parent they might be able to deal with the situation before they catch an STD or end up at planned parenthood getting an even more intrusive medical procedure that kills your first grandchild.  What if your child is having sex with their teacher, and the teacher is the one pressuring the child to get the birth control?  Wouldn't you want to know?  

How do you know that the government medical person is qualified to be implanting birth control in the first place, or even knows how?


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> And if you did I would bet your thinking would change. Mine did. I see the world alot differently now then I did when I was kidless.



Actually, my parents talked to me, and I had sex ed in school.  My parents weren't clueless....they knew what was going on.  So, if I were to go out with friends, to a party, etc, I used the common sense and good solid judgement that they instilled in me.  

The thing is...sex is everywhere.  I mean, unless you're living in a cave, you can't turn on the tv, without seeing someone kissing, laying in bed, you name it.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2012)

billcihak said:


> It is hard for me to see how people are so willing to let a nameless bureaucrat make a decision that affects your children. How did the government bureaucrat decide on which chemical to use? Is it because some politician recieved campaign cash from the drug company and since he sits on the child healthcare committee the decision was based on the size of the campaign donation? How do you know they are applying the right dosage for your child? Do they have access to your child's complete medical history and allergy list? If your child is having sex, perhaps if someone informed the parent they might be able to deal with the situation before they catch an STD or end up at planned parenthood getting an even more intrusive medical procedure that kills your first grandchild. What if your child is having sex with their teacher, and the teacher is the one pressuring the child to get the birth control? Wouldn't you want to know?
> 
> How do you know that the government medical person is qualified to be implanting birth control in the first place, or even knows how?



Actually, when we stop and think about it, the govt/state dictates ALOT of what we do.  Unless we want to move to an island and start our own little 'world' a huge portion of what we do in day to day activity, is dictated by someone.  

Ok....implanting something...sure, I'll give you that one.  Probably not the best thing, but handing out birthcontrol, teaching sex ed....nope, nothing wrong with that.  Once again, I repeat...I dont give a rats *** who does it...as long as someone is doing it!!!!  But its something that needs to be done.  Sex is real, sex happens.  As long as you dont mind supporting your kids kid while they finish school, but I'm sorry...seeing some 14 or 15yo kid trying to raise a kid....laughable at best.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 8, 2012)

Texas wanted to shoot teens up with a fast tracked vaccine after the governors buddies who sold it made big contributions to his war chest.  It was only after big public outcry that they decided to not use the girls as lab rats. **** happens in the US too.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Whats silly?



Then idea that it's better for a girl who cannot discuss contraceptives with her parents be subjected to an unplanned pregnancy and/or an STD is silly.



ballen0351 said:


> You told your parents everything you did as a child I know I didnt.



Nope. But I knew how to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and had access to contraceptives. I even knew why teenage sex could be considered a bad idea, and why it might be wiser to keep it in my pants.



ballen0351 said:


> Not my kids you wont or you would have a major problem on your hands.



There's a rational, well thought out response if I've ever seen one. You always try to control every conversation your child has, or only with Evil Medical Establishment?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> And if you did I would bet your thinking would change.  Mine did.  I see the world alot differently now then I did when I was kidless.



Actually, I have three kids. A son and two daughters. All of them learned how babies are made at home. They also learned how NOT to make them. One chose to become sexual active at 16. She knew how to avoid STDs and unwanted conception, and she did so. I put her on the pill and made sure she had access to condoms. Eight years later, she will have her first child later this month. And THAT child will also be educated. Not kept in the dark.

You know which kids I see in the ER with STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and "secret" pregnancies with no prenatal care? I'll give you a hint. As a rule, it's not the ones who were never educated and never given the chance to protect themselves.

Oh, and to whomever left me the negative unsigned rep, my kids would disagree with you. But then, they know the difference between "your" and "you're" too.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Look up Dr earl bradley from delaware.  Im on my cell and can't post the link and you will se why my kids don't see doctors dentists or anyone else alone.  That was my nieces doctor.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

AAlso nowhere did I say I was against teaching children about sex or even providing BC im against not tell a parent.  Thankfully my childrens school is not even allowed to give a kid aspirin without calling a parent first


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> AAlso nowhere did I say I was against teaching children about sex or even providing BC im against not tell a parent.  Thankfully my childrens school is not even allowed to give a kid aspirin without calling a parent first



And, once again, the school didn't provide anything to these kids. The National Health Service did. They went to their health care provider, asked for (I've not seen it suggested that these girls were given contraceptive implants against their will) contraception, and were given it. By people who are licensed to provide these medications. Same as your daughter could do, by going to HER health care provider or planned parenthood. 

Just trying to keep the conversation about the actual issue posted...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Look up Dr earl bradley from delaware.  Im on my cell and can't post the link and you will se why my kids don't see doctors dentists or anyone else alone.  That was my nieces doctor.



While he truely seems to be a vile and reprehensible individual, do you REALLY think it's rational to paint the entire medical world with the pervert brush because of his actions? I guess you probably think all Catholilc priests are pedophiles too? And of course, all presidents are philanderers? All professional golfers are cheating horn dogs? When I was 17, I was mugged and stabbed by a black man. Would that justify my opinion that all black men are dangerous strong arm thieves (a view I do NOT hold, I want to make clear)?

I'm leaving the thread now. Have a nice day, and a nice life.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

And that's wrong as well.  Under 18 is my child and im responsible for her so ithe need to be aware of medical issues and procedures. Besides they said 13 year olds were given them and in this state its illegal for a 13 year old to have sex.  Also the implant does nothing to prevent STDs and encourages kids not to use condoms.




Dirty Dog said:


> And, once again, the school didn't provide anything to these kids. The National Health Service did. They went to their health care provider, asked for (I've not seen it suggested that these girls were given contraceptive implants against their will) contraception, and were given it. By people who are licensed to provide these medications. Same as your daughter could do, by going to HER health care provider or planned parenthood.
> 
> Just trying to keep the conversation about the actual issue posted...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

It's good to know the government is ready to take care of your kids for you. They always get it right, never use untested drugs, and always have your kids best interest at heart, regardless of your wishes as their parents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> While he truely seems to be a vile and reprehensible individual, do you REALLY think it's rational to paint the entire medical world with the pervert brush because of his actions? I guess you probably think all Catholilc priests are pedophiles too? And of course, all presidents are philanderers? All professional golfers are cheating horn dogs? When I was 17, I was mugged and stabbed by a black man. Would that justify my opinion that all black men are dangerous strong arm thieves (a view I do NOT hold, I want to make clear)?
> 
> I'm leaving the thread now. Have a nice day, and a nice life.



No all doctors are not perverts but i also wont let my kids alone with adults i dont trust.  That includes doctors.  My wife is PTA president and a school volunteer so shes at the school all the time.  I coach the kids sports teams.  And my wife is the girl scouts troop leader.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

The girls that are getting these injections are sadly girls who are already having sex, may already have a child and have parents who don't give a damn so someone has to look out for them. Many of you are assuming that the childrens parents actually are that bothered, the school's stated that letters were sent out to parents who could have said no even if their daughters said yes. * One* mother is complaining!  The 'state' has a duty of care seeing as no one else cares much about them it's the best they get. In an ideal world it wouldn't be like this but unless we want these girls to have half a dozen kids by 6 different fathers what else would you suggest the 'state' does? It's fine getting all moral about it but when the parents don't take responsibilty someone has to, this may not have been the best way to deal with it but someone at least is trying to do something for these girls so instead of seeing government conspiracies and big brother come down off the moral high horse and see it for what it is, an attempt, a poor one maybe but an attempt at least to solve what is a heart wrenching problem.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez, I don't see it as the 'State's business to tell anyone what they can or can't do, and I certainly don't think the State should be doing things to people without their knowledge or consent.  If I were to find out someone did this to me, my wife or my kids I guarantee that someone would be going home in a bag and police involvement would be certain.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Tez, I don't see it as the 'State's business to tell anyone what they can or can't do, and I certainly don't think the State should be doing things to people without their knowledge or consent. If I were to find out someone did this to me, my wife or my kids I guarantee that someone would be going home in a bag and police involvement would be certain.



The 'state' didn't do it without permission, the girls gave permission. Now you can argue they weren't old enought but they are already having sex. The thing is though you care, the majority of these parents don't until they are tracked down by a newspaper and paid for a quote. It's all fine saying the state can't do this and that but what happens when no one else cares about these girlls and the 'state' is left to pick up the pieces with housing, benefits etc, if the state has to pay well it's the tax payer isn't it, the taxpayer/state should have a damn say in it. Would you be happy paying for these girls hospital costs, housing and benefits just so they can carry on having kids by different fathers who are themselves young and on benefits etc. Even in your country someone would have to pay for these girls and their babies when the parents don't care, they'd be taken in by your social services and you'd end up as a tax payer paying for them. How do you suggest this problem is sorted?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

> How do you suggest this problem is sorted?



Require the parents to um...parent.

We can fix this another way.  Just sterilize them. After all, that's simpler, more cost effective and since these are most likely lower class kids, helps minimize the risk of future tax drains on the taxpayers. If the taxpayer is the concern, then do it to minimize long term costs. You can also extend that to people in institutions as well since a retard who gets knocked up can't be an effective parent.  Is that ok too?



> The 'state' didn't do it without permission, the girls gave permission.


Were they of an age they could give consent? If not, then in my view it doesn't matter what they say. 



> Now you can argue they weren't old enought but they are already having sex.



So, since they can consent to being drugged, can they now consent to the sex? Signing a contract? Etc?



> The thing is though you care, the majority of these parents don't until  they are tracked down by a newspaper and paid for a quote.


Pass a law, hit the clueless ****s in the wallet where it matters.



> It's all fine saying the state can't do this and that but what happens  when no one else cares about these girlls and the 'state' is left to  pick up the pieces with housing, benefits etc, if the state has to pay  well it's the tax payer isn't it, the taxpayer/state should have a damn  say in it.



Round them up, lock them up and don't let them out until they reach 18. Then it's their problem and not the states.



> Would you be happy paying for these girls hospital costs, housing and  benefits just so they can carry on having kids by different fathers who  are themselves young and on benefits etc.



You know my view on welfare. Put them in workfare programs or let them starve. When they break the law, put them in jail.



> Even in your country someone would have to pay for these girls and their  babies when the parents don't care, they'd be taken in by your social  services and you'd end up as a tax payer paying for them.



See above.

Look, it's not that I'm a heartless bastard. It's just that I think parents should parent, and the government shouldn't be a nanny. Help the truely needy, and get the rest off their arses and into being productive members of society.

I also think poorly of anyone who'll harm kids, and I see this as harm.  My view. I also thought Texas sucked when they tried to pull it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

How can you complain about giving girls contraception without their parents knowing then say sterilise them in the next breath!

Of course the parents should parent and of course the authorities should stay out but when it's the authorities or I should say us who pick up the bill I think we are entitled to have a say in what happens. 


So the authorities stay out of these peoples lives, and girls of 14 have children what then? this isn't in theory which is always good this is in real life when you know the parents don't care, do we leave the gril and her baby out on the street, do we leave that baby to be neglected, what do we do? Not theatorically but in real life, not in a discussion but for real because that's what the authorities have to deal with. the medics in this case were clumsy and mis guided perhaps but at least they were trying to do soemthing about a very real problem that we have to pay for, not just now but in the future because this gets perpetuated down the generations. Saying airily what should happen is fine but social workers, charities, the government and ultimately us have to do something now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> How can you complain about giving girls contraception without their parents knowing then say sterilise them in the next breath!



I think you missed my point. I'm not saying either is correct. But if 1 is, then so is the other. What else can the State do to someone without consent that the State claims is 'for their own good'?  



> Of course the parents should parent and of course the authorities should stay out but when it's the authorities or I should say us who pick up the bill I think we are entitled to have a say in what happens.



So then grab some bollocks and go in all the way.  Executing them saves a lot of money long term.  Because kids from broken homes like this end up creating more broken homes and the tax burden and social burden on society continues to grow.



> So the authorities stay out of these peoples lives, and girls of 14 have children what then? this isn't in theory which is always good this is in real life when you know the parents don't care, do we leave the gril and her baby out on the street, do we leave that baby to be neglected, what do we do? Not theatorically but in real life, not in a discussion but for real because that's what the authorities have to deal with. the medics in this case were clumsy and mis guided perhaps but at least they were trying to do soemthing about a very real problem that we have to pay for, not just now but in the future because this gets perpetuated down the generations. Saying airily what should happen is fine but social workers, charities, the government and ultimately us have to do something now.



You can demand that people be responsible and push that, or you can give up and let the State do everything.
I like option A.
Otherwise you start down a path where the State has say over too much of your life, and I for 1 would hate to live in a world where wiping my **** requires the permission of the State.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

Ah, stop for a sec...

Are we talking about sterilization or BC?

The latter, well isn't it covered under Dr/patient privilege? 
I mean, are those doctors roaming the streets, catching young girls and women and putting them under the knife?


----------



## cdunn (Feb 9, 2012)

There is only one valid question here, in my opinion: Are these girls able to provide sufficiently informed consent to choose to have birth control? NHS doctors aren't hunting down girls and shooting them with birth control darts on the streets, these are girls that are seeking the solution to what they perceive to be a problem. 

IMO, I do not think they have the full judgement to do so; at the least, it is not consistent with the general belief that they are not able to provide sufficiently informed consent to freely choose sexual partners. While children are not the property of their parents, we entrusted the parents with the personage of the child until the age of majority, precisely because the child is not developed enough to be fully informed. But, there are practical matters to deal with as well - namely, kids having kids. Therefore, I would happily support a system which makes birth control available by default, with parental notification of the existence of the system, and the ability to opt-out. Therefore, those parents which do have health or moral objections can exercise that protection, but those students whose parents are supportive of birth control, or whose parents have abdicated their postion as guardians can obtain it. _This is ennabling the individual to claim responsibility for herself, not pressing that responsiblity into the state's hands_.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Ah, stop for a sec...
> 
> Are we talking about sterilization or BC?
> 
> ...



What's the difference?  If the bottom line is tax payer costs, then sterilization or execution are much more cost effective than a temporary measure.


People say 'whats the big deal'.
What if it was your kid?
What if it was you?

My point here is this: Should the State be able to do things to you or yours without your knowledge and consent?
Yes or No.   Simple question.


In some countries retards -are- sterilized.  We make big stinks about it on humanitarian grounds.
In some countries undesirables are executed. We make stink about that too.
How's this different?
"The parents don't care". Who decided that? Were the parents informed? Were notices sent home, phone calls made, officials dispatched to knock on doors and say "hey, your kids a slut and we don't want her popping out lots of little bastards so we're gonna go and shoot her full of drugs to make it safe for her to whore around. Sign here."?

If the kids are -that- poorly parented, surly there is a mechanism in place to get them out of those homes and into ones that will be of help to them? Surely there are laws and mechanisms that hold those parents responsible for their underage kids acts?


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

LOL, there is a slight difference between a snip and tuck and a hormonal implant that does eventually wear off.

In an alien state of mind, looking down on our species, I do have to say, not everything ought to reproduce. However we do believe that there is that thing we grant each other about the right to decide for ourselves...oh well. 

However, the implant BC is much gentler on the tax payers wallet than the followup costs of pregnancy, childbirth and subsequent child care. or multiples there of. I know most of you, in the dark deep recesses of their minds would advocate a free tube tying for the 'mother' of numerous children, supporting herself and the spawns via government checks. Don't deny it. 


But we are talking the UK system here, right?
It's government paid anyhow.

So the question is parental consent, no?
In this case - depending on the age of said girl I have to say tough luck. Parents do not need to know everything. From a certain age on, that is. Eventually they have to let the kids go and hope they done a halfway decent job of raising them.

So, unless the Doctors implanted the girls without their knowledge...or really young girls (and then again, if the girls are in need of it, being active and/or cogniscent of BC...it's probably prudent, too)


If it was my kid I would have to ask myself where I went wrong that I missed the opportunity for an open discourse of the topic, both about the ramifications of having sex and the methods and needs to prevent pregnancies. 

Again. The snip and tuck vs implant...

The patient's consent vs a third party

Age is naturally relevant.

From years past, I remember letters to the infamous 'Dr Sommer' in a popular German youth magazine, how many were asking basic questions, under the premise that they could not talk to their parents. The answers normally went along the line of 'go see a doctor, he, she cannot talk to your parent without your ok.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Age of Consent in the UK is listed at 16.
At what age in the UK can someone legally sign a binding contract?  US is 18. I go by that number here.

Anyone under the age of consent should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone between the AOC and age of binding is grey, and should have had a parent sign off on it.
Anyone over the age they can sign a binding contract can take responsibility for them selves.



What I might want in a case like this is irrelevant. 
I'm only arguing is it right for the state to modify minor children without parental consent.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Age of Consent in the UK is listed at 16.
> At what age in the UK can someone legally sign a binding contract?  US is 18. I go by that number here.
> 
> Anyone under the age of consent should have had a parent sign off on it.
> ...




Well here in Bama you can't own a car until you are 19 I have been told. 

However, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about the doctor handing out BC. 

While you won't need BC without sex, it's not the same thing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

The OP didn't say 'underage girls were handed some gummi's and told to wrap it before they wack it' it said 'injected'.   Bit more invasive IMO.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The OP didn't say 'underage girls were handed some gummi's and told to wrap it before they wack it' it said 'injected'.   Bit more invasive IMO.



certainly is, but no more than any vaccination.

Parents like to think that if they don't tell their kids, the kids won't know and don't do it. Whatever 'it' is. 
You can't bubble wrap kids. As a parent you ought to be on top of things, and yeah, trust and communication over control the uncontrollable. The equipment works from a certain point on, no instruction manual needed. 

However, we are back to the issue of Doctor/Patient communication. does a doctor have the obligation to tell a parent that their child came in for a sex related visit.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Well here in Bama you can't own a car until you are 19 I have been told.


im not sure that true I just looked at alabama motor vehicles info and I see no age requirement 



> However, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about the doctor handing out BC.
> 
> While you won't need BC without sex, it's not the same thing.


were also not talking about just giving kids condoms and explaining STDs and pregnancy were talking about a medication implanted into a childs arm without parental notification or approval.  Big difference.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> were also not talking about just giving kids condoms and explaining STDs and pregnancy were talking about a medication implanted into a childs arm without parental notification or approval.  Big difference.



It's a treatment in a doctor's office. From a certain point on parents no longer have the automatic right to be notified about any exchanges in the office. 
it then makes no difference if it's condoms and the STD lecture or the implant. 

The point here is - should - be if the person getting the implant was properly informed and consented.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> The point here is - should - be if the person getting the implant was properly informed and consented.



According to the nice people at NAMBLA, those kids consent too.

So..... a kid can consent to drugs and it's ok, but not sex?  Or does the validity of consent depend on if "The State" thinks it's good?


----------



## Carol (Feb 9, 2012)

I had to get birth control on my own when I was underage.  The reasons had nothing to do with sex.  From what I've been told by several medical professionals (Dirty Dog can correct me if I'm off the mark here) the BCP was originally invented to control and treat issues caused by hormonal regularities. The suppression of ovulation was an unexpected, albeit interesting, side effect.

Leave it up to the parents?  Yeah, lots of things should be left up to the parents.  Unless of course  you have parents that have a sick sense of "love" and would rather see their a sick kid weakened by anaemia then get them the treatment they needed to solve the issues causing the anaemia in the first place. For me, the BCP had nothing to do with sex, it was medicine.   There are probably some folks chuckling right now and thinking yeah surrrrrrre, uh huh.

I made the decision well before I was diagnosed with metorrhagia to not have sex until later on in my life.  I had many reasons for this, and looking back I am thoroughly glad I made that decision and stuck with it.  Despite that, I still could not get my parents to finance BCP at $30/month for her sick kid.  $30/month may not seem like a lot unless you are 14-15 years old, no drivers license, scant work opportunities, and you have to pay for it with practically no income and you are losing your ability to work and keep your grades up due to fatigue.

Bottom line, parenting is no different than any other intimate relationship -- it can be amazingly beautiful.  Unfortunately certain people or scenarios it also breeds issues of control, power, scorn, disrespect, disgust, and hurt.  I would have just liked to have gotten the treatment I needed from my doctor and pharmacy rather than finding out alternatives from sexually active friends and sneaking around to certain clinics two towns over just to get my meds.   

Birth control is an area that still raises a lot of heated emotions.  I'd hate to see other young women go through what I went through. Whether this should be done in school by government officials is perhaps a different discussion but based on my own experience, it is very difficult for me to come out on the side of banning access to birth control for anyone under 18 without their parents permission.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> According to the nice people at NAMBLA, those kids consent too.
> 
> So..... a kid can consent to drugs and it's ok, but not sex? Or does the validity of consent depend on if "The State" thinks it's good?



I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex.

Injecting chemicals into children I guess is only to be done by mothers.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565711/Mum-injects-her-girl-7-with-Botox.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

IIm somewhat shocked so many people would so willingly allow the state to do whatever they wanted to your children without your consent or knowledge.  I glad you all trust the govt so much to be a better parent then you are.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex


kids can aslo consent to sex with adults is that ok?  Kids can consent to smoking crack is that ok?  Kids can consent to being a prostitute for extra allowance is that ok?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you'll find the kids have already consented to sex.



So....despite your legal age being 16, a 13 yr old can over rule it?  



> Injecting chemicals into children I guess is only to be done by mothers.
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565711/Mum-injects-her-girl-7-with-Botox.html


That to me falls into 'abuse'.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> IIm somewhat shocked so many people would so willingly allow the state to do whatever they wanted to your children without your consent or knowledge. I glad you all trust the govt so much to be a better parent then you are.



Neither the 'state' nor the 'government' has any say in this actually. It would have been the decision of the local PCT.
http://www.southamptonhealth.nhs.uk/welcome/

so, a few girls who classed as 'at risk' are given a contraceptive and you assume this is happening everywhere to all of our children? You are also assuming we agree with it. we don't but we can see why it happened, there should a have been a better way to deal with the problem, it was badly handled but we can't hide from the fact that there is a problem by spouting fine rhetoric.
http://lutonchildcare.proceduresonline.com/chapters/g_cin_def_criteria.htm#cat_cin


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> IIm somewhat shocked so many people would so willingly allow the state to do whatever they wanted to your children without your consent or knowledge.  I glad you all trust the govt so much to be a better parent then you are.



I thought in your line of work you have seen a lot of parents who ought not be allowed to have a pet rock...

aside from the fact that it's not the state that does it, but a doctor. So he gets paid from the state and not Blue Cross...

And don't bring child prostitutes in there. Stay on topic. 

Legal consent and actually adhering to it are different matters.

So you advocate to not giving young girls BC though you know they are sexually active? How does that make you responsible? I bed you, explain. 

and who on earth said they were having sex with adults? Which btw is not important in the matter of BC. The swimmers swim, fastest on a certain day gets a prize. 

Problem: Young girls are having sex
Solution: To the sex part, actually non. It's a society thing, won't be fixed in a jiffy, it will take a generation or so.

Problem: Birth Control
Solution: Give the people in need the protection needed.

Problem: Parental consent
Solution: None. from one point on they don't have that right anymore. And if they don't know what their kid is doing...

Problem: Parents don't know what is going on
Solution? Your guess is as good as mine.


And there is ballen's worst case scenario: old men raping good little girls and turning them into hookers...
Not saying it does not happen, but sheesh.
And even in that case, a long lasting BC is not a bad thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

If it were boys of this age would we be having the same discussion? Aren't girls today doing what boys have always done, only, as always the consequences for girls are higher. No one is happy that young people this age are having sex but they are and until we know how to stop that we need to take care of the problem of teenage births. Is anyone going to be happy if abortion were the answer? No, and that does go for the pro choice people, no one wants that so despite good sex education, the teaching about sexual diseases, teaching them to say no, teaching them safe sex, teaching them nothing, teaching them everything they are having sex at 13 so what do we do now? someone somewhere, under the pressure of the mounting statistics of children giving birth to children thought ah lets at least give them contraception they can't forget to take or their boyfriend can say don't use, the girls agreed, they are the ones having sex despite everything society has tried to stop them, so they were given contraception without parents consent. Hearts may have been in the right place, heads certainly weren't. there will an enquiry, the posh people will tut and then what....? governments and civil rights aside, what can be done?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Yes we would have this discussion for boys as well.  Nowhere did I say I was against BC.  BC does not bother me I could care less.  Its that kids were given an injection or implanted with a drug without notification to a legal guardian .  They took the choice away from a guardian and left it up to a 13vote year old that is not mature enough to weigh att the risks as far as side effects.  Everyday more and more research shows how dangerious these drugs can be with blood clots ect.  Also as far as I can find thete has been no long term study on the effects of these drugs on young girls in the long term.  My girls will be taught about sex and the use of condoms.  They don't need to be pumped full of artifical chemicals when we have no idea of the long term effects of them.  That's my decision and no govt agency or doc has the right to change that.  When she's 18to she's free to do as she wants then


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

by the way if strage out of place words appear in my post its my phone and I don't know why its doing that


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If it were boys of this age would we be having the same discussion?



Yes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yes.



And to go one further if it was not BC and it was a vaccine for small pox and it was given to my child without my knowledge id still be upset.  Does that mean im against small pox vaccines?  No it means im for knowing what's going on with my child


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> by the way if strage out of place words appear in my post its my phone and I don't know why its doing that



You'll have to watch that lol! it could end up with you saying things you didn't mean!


Permission was sought from parents, letters had gone out, I imagine that schools who hold in loco parentis while pupils are in them gave permission in lieu of the parents lack of interest.
This is what they were given.  http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/828.aspx


Children under 16



Children in this age group are not deemed to be automatically legally competent to give consent.
The courts have determined that such children can be legally competent if they have 'sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed'.
This concept - now known as 'Gillick competency' - initially arose in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority in 1986.[SUP]8[/SUP] The term 'Fraser competency' is also used in this respect (Lord Fraser was the judge who ruled on the case).
Some authorities refer to Fraser competency when talking about contraception and Gillick competency when talking about wider areas of consent.[SUP]9[/SUP] In many cases the two terms are used interchangeably.
Much will depend on the relationship of the clinician with the child and the family and also on what intervention is being proposed.
A young person who has the capacity to consent to straightforward, relatively risk-free treatment may not necessarily have the capacity to consent to complex treatment involving high risks or serious consequences.[SUP]1[/SUP]
Competency is something that can be developed over time by presenting the child with information appropriate to their age and level of education and this process may be a rewarding one in the management of children with long-term conditions that involve several therapeutic procedures or investigations.
_The emphasis in the Department of Health's guidance is that the families of children in this age group should be involved in decisions about their care, unless there is a very good reason for not doing so._
*If, however, a competent child under the age of 16 is insistent that their family should not be involved, their right to confidentiality must be respected, unless such an approach would put them at serious risk of harm.*
It should be noted that this legal framework applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, there is no statutory legislation but there is clear case law to guide practitioners.
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent-to-Treatment-in-Children.htm


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Sow who decides if she's competent?  

Sending home a letter is not enough it should require a signed permission slip from a parent


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sow who decides if she's competent?
> 
> Sending home a letter is not enough it should require a signed permission slip from a parent



The letter would have been a permission slip. When we discuss this among ourselves we are discussing it with a bunch of on the whole like minded responsible adults, frankly it wouldn't be our children that had this contraceptive given to them would it? We would be telling our children about sex etc, we take responsibility for our children. If, sadly, our children did get pregnant while at school we'd take responsibility then too, we wouldn't leave it to others be it medics, government or social workers, it would be us. However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## aedrasteia (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> *However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.*



what she said.  x20.

Good on you Tez. Trying to positive rep you - tech problems? anyway.. consider yourself +rep.
and thanks.


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes we would have this discussion for boys as well.  Nowhere did I say I was against BC.  BC does not bother me I could care less.  Its that kids were given an injection or implanted with a drug without notification to a legal guardian .  They took the choice away from a guardian and left it up to a 13vote year old that is not mature enough to weigh att the risks as far as side effects.  Everyday more and more research shows how dangerious these drugs can be with blood clots ect.  Also as far as I can find thete has been no long term study on the effects of these drugs on young girls in the long term.  My girls will be taught about sex and the use of condoms.  They don't need to be pumped full of artifical chemicals when we have no idea of the long term effects of them.  That's my decision and no govt agency or doc has the right to change that.  When she's 18to she's free to do as she wants then




ah, the pill has been on the market for over 50 years by now, that is roughly twice the reproductive period of a women.

It's pretty well researched. 

However, I am pretty sure that somewhere around the age of 16 the parent's rights in terms of health matters rapidly diminish. 
So should your daughters decide they rather have the added 4.9% points of security, plus the advantageous side effects the pill can have I don't think you have much recourse.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> ah, the pill has been on the market for over 50 years by now, that is roughly twice the reproductive period of a women.
> 
> It's pretty well researched.


So then why do they still find issues about the pill?  Yaz or whatever its called just had a major lawsuit due to side effects.  Again where are the studies done on people that started at 13?



> However, I am pretty sure that somewhere around the age of 16 the parent's rights in terms of health matters rapidly diminish.


Well maybe in your family.


> So should your daughters decide they rather have the added 4.9% points of security, plus the advantageous side effects the pill can have I don't think you have much recourse.


Well luckly for me we live over an hour away from the closest Planned Parenthood clinic so im not to worried about it.  But you raise you kid who you want and ill raise mine.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> However the girls we are talking about don't have parents like us, if they did we wouldn't be having this discussion.



Correct but because they dont take care of their kids others should loose their rights to be a good parent?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Correct but because they dont take care of their kids others should loose their rights to be a good parent?



You've missed the point, those who take care of their children don't lose their rights. You still seem to think this is a general thing that all girls are having done instead of it being an isolated incident in one school in one town as someone thought it might be a solution to a very sticky problem. No one who looks after their children will lose anything.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

Well, if injecting birth control chemicals in 13 year olds can be justified because they may not have good parents, and they might have sex and some 13 year olds are mature enough to decide to get birth control, how about chemical birth control for boys, otherwise known as chemical castration.  Since most girls are pressured into sex by their boyfriends, cutting down on their sex drive would only make sense.  You would be addressing the problem of unwanted human life from both sides of the equation.  

For example, if you have a 13 year old boy who is getting into a lot of trouble, you could bring him into the admin. office and tell him, if he doesn't want his parents involved in the problem, he could "volunteer" for implanting chemicals that would reduce his tendency for bad behavior.  You would solve the teen sex problem, and at the same time possibly reduce his desire to "act out" through anti-social behavior.  Since the drug is a birth control drug, you wouldn't have to get the parent's permission.  Would that be okay as well?

Back to the regular topic, is it only an isolated incident?  Has anyone looked into it yet?


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's good to know the government is ready to take care of your kids for you. They always get it right, never use untested drugs, and always have your kids best interest at heart, regardless of your wishes as their parents.



Yup, just like the govt dictates alot of what we do in life.  OTOH, I find it interesting that all these people who get knocked up and can't afford the kid and need all this help, go running right for the state/govt run programs.  Go figure.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

MJS said:


> Option 1: Have the state or someone else (see my posts for who) teach sex ed.
> 
> Option 2: Have the parents do it.
> 
> ...



Well, since it seems nobody answered, I'll ask again.  If a parent feels that nobody but THEM should talk to their kids about sex, ok, fine, I'll accept that opinion.  But, let me ask this...if you choose to not say anything or much of anything, what will your feelings be, if your daughter gets pregnant or your son comes to you and tells you that he got a girl pregnant?


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm sure we would throw a party and celebrate.  Now for the real answer,it would be a time of hardship and heartbreak, no doubt.  You suffer the consequences as best you can as you either put the baby up for adoption or try to raise the baby as a family.  That is why as a parent you do talk to your kids about why it is such a bad idea to have a baby when you aren't even out of high school.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, if injecting birth control chemicals in 13 year olds can be justified because they may not have good parents, and they might have sex and some 13 year olds are mature enough to decide to get birth control, how about chemical birth control for boys, otherwise known as chemical castration. Since most girls are pressured into sex by their boyfriends, cutting down on their sex drive would only make sense. You would be addressing the problem of unwanted human life from both sides of the equation.
> 
> For example, if you have a 13 year old boy who is getting into a lot of trouble, you could bring him into the admin. office and tell him, if he doesn't want his parents involved in the problem, he could "volunteer" for implanting chemicals that would reduce his tendency for bad behavior. You would solve the teen sex problem, and at the same time possibly reduce his desire to "act out" through anti-social behavior. Since the drug is a birth control drug, you wouldn't have to get the parent's permission. Would that be okay as well?
> 
> Back to the regular topic, is it only an isolated incident? Has anyone looked into it yet?



Those are some very sick suggestions.

To go over all you have misunderstood would take a little too much time that I will never get back. Suffice to say you have twisted things around to suit your purposes of saying the left wants government control etc etc however I should remind you of one thing....we have a Conservative Prime Minister and Minister of State for Health, true blue Tories so that must make it alright in your eyes surely.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I'm sure we would throw a party and celebrate.  Now for the real answer,it would be a time of hardship and heartbreak, no doubt.  You suffer the consequences as best you can as you either put the baby up for adoption or try to raise the baby as a family.  That is why as a parent you do talk to your kids about why it is such a bad idea to have a baby when you aren't even out of high school.



Thank you for your reply.   Now, do you think that had the kids been properly educated, that would be a better option, rather than dealing with a possible unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

Actually Tez, I'm in agreement with Bill here.

Not his examples. But his point. 

Lets reset though.

Simple question: Do you think this was right?

I don't, Bill doesn't, and I get the feeling you don't either.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually Tez, I'm in agreement with Bill here.
> 
> Not his examples. But his point.
> 
> ...



I think posting up sick suggestions of things to do to boys is bang out of order.

If people read what I've written I have tried to give people the background to what goes on here as I would expect Americans to do the same for me about American issues. I have said it was a cack handed attempt by someone somewhere to try to do something for girls that in all probability, I'd say I'm 99.9% sure have little support from homes, this is based on what we know happens here. I'm 100% sure that these girls are already having sex, that they have asked for contraceptives and/or have discussed it with a health professional. Girls aren't stupid these days, they can get all the info they want off the internet. I have also said that while giving them contraceptives without their parents knowledge isn't the ideal what would people suggest instead. No one has given a sensible alternative to this. It's been 'I bring my children up correctly', 'why should good parents lose their rights' etc etc no one has thought about these girls, I mean properly thought and come up with a good, workable, acceptable answer to the problem of young girls having sex. I pointed out that we've had all the theories, teach sex, don't teach sex, preach abstinance, teach sex safe and we still haven't solved the problem. So instead of ranting about governments not being responsible tell me how we deal with this, if the tax payer doesn't who does? What is the practicable, workable answer to these girls who have sex, babies and more babies? 
http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic38122.html


It's parents job to bring their children up properly however we know not all parents do.
We know that parenting isn't the concern of the government but we also know that some parents renege on their responsibilites.
We know that children shouldn't be having sex until the age of consent, 16 in the UK, later would be better still, it should be part of a loving relationship however we also know it doesn't always work like that.
We know that we have children who ae having babies at far too early an age.

So, what is the answer? Not the ideal, not how you bring your children up but how the health authorities in Southampton deal with these girls who are having sex at 13 and will get pregnant at some point, if only to get a house of their own if nothing else.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2012)

Want to add that it's very easy to say what shouldn't be done, much harder to actually come up with a plan of what can be done to remedy situations.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

And in some countries, the suggestions that I and Bill made, that you found repulsive, are how those governments and government agencies handle similar problems. Some just kill the kids outright.  Neither my or his suggestions were serious ones to the problem here. I get the feeling you thought they were, given the ire I'm seeing you vent here.

You asked my suggestion on what to do.

Hold the parents accountable.
Remove the children from those homes if that proves undoable.

But is this 'unaccountable' parents, or parents who say 'no' and the kids say 'yes' so this agency sided with the minor children over their parents?

Who decides what's best for your kids Tez?  You or some agency?

In the US, we're allowed to homeschool our kids in some places.  Germany doesn't like that and mandates all kids go through the government schools. I saw a case where they took the kids from a family by force who wanted to teach them at home.  In Germany, the government thinks they know best.  I disagree with that, so I'll never try to raise a family in Germany.

You asked how should the authorities handle these kids.

Hold the parents accountable.
Remove the children from those homes if that proves undoable.

But who says the authorities know better than the parents?

Part of this argument revolves around how the actions or lack there in of these parents offends you (and us).
But who are any of us to tell any of them how to raise their kids?




> "It's parents job to bring their children up properly however we know not all parents do."



I agree, but define "Properly".



> We know that parenting isn't the concern of the government but we also know that some parents renege on their responsibilites.



I agree. But define "responsibilities"



> We know that children shouldn't be having sex until the age of consent,  16 in the UK, later would be better still, it should be part of a loving  relationship however we also know it doesn't always work like that.



I agree, but I know people who were responsible at 14, and some who still aren't in their 80's. Age is a number, responsible is not.



> We know that we have children who ae having babies at far too early an age."



I know. I agree. I don't like it either.

But here's the solutions:
1- educate them on safe sex methods and encourage their usage of them.
2- help them develop good self esteem, a positive self image and strong backbone to help resist pressure.
3- drug them
4- sterilize them
5- kill them

I disagree with 4 & 5. I agree with 1 & 2.  3 should be by informed choice by someone able to legally consent.

You and I will agree I think on 1,2,4 & 5.
We will disagree on who that someone able to consent is on #3.

I believe we are in much closer accord than it seems on a casual  read.


----------



## aedrasteia (Feb 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> _And in some countries, the suggestions that I and Bill made, that you found repulsive,
> are how those governments and government agencies handle similar problems._
> 
> Serious question Bob, which ones?
> ...


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

MJS, of course, but who do you want explaining it to your children, you or a government agent.  Forget about the bad parent scenario, what about you and your children, do you want your ability to deal with the sensitive issue of sex controlled by a politician who empowers a federal agency?


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> MJS, of course, but who do you want explaining it to your children, you or a government agent.  Forget about the bad parent scenario, what about you and your children, do you want your ability to deal with the sensitive issue of sex controlled by a politician who empowers a federal agency?



Well, seeing that I've said it numerous times, and its either benig missed or ignored, I'll say it again.  I do not care who teaches it.  It could be a parent, a teacher, a nurse, a doctor, someone from your church....as long as someone teaches it.  

The main issue some have is that someone other than a parent is doing it.  Fine, I can accept ya'll dont like that.  BUT....that tells me that someone should be doing it.  My other concern was what happens when the parents dont think they should talk about it or need to talk about it.  

As I said, I dont have kids, but if I did, my wife and I would do it, but I'm not going to get all up in arms either, if the school decides to talk about it in health class or sex ed.  

As I said to Bob earlier, what strikes me as funny, is the fact that so many bash the govt/state run programs, yet those places are the first place people run to for free help, free this, free that.  They're good enough then?  Hmm..ok.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Tez there is no solution to the issue.  The BC will stop the pregnancy but if these girls were already having unprotected sex it will do nothing to keep them from getting an STD which is much more serious then a pregnancy.  A baby can be given up for an adoption an STD can kill you.  If there was a solution to the problem then it would have been solved already.  Much like all of lifes troubles there is no solution.  The problem I have is as stated you can't just inject kids with things without letting a parent know.  Its just not a good idea.  There is no way to fix everyone.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2012)

aedrasteia said:


> Bob Hubbard said:
> 
> 
> > _And in some countries, the suggestions that I and Bill made, that you found repulsive,
> ...


----------



## granfire (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Tez there is no solution to the issue.  The BC will stop the pregnancy but if these girls were already having unprotected sex it will do nothing to keep them from getting an STD which is much more serious then a pregnancy.  A baby can be given up for an adoption an STD can kill you.  If there was a solution to the problem then it would have been solved already.  Much like all of lifes troubles there is no solution.  The problem I have is as stated you can't just inject kids with things without letting a parent know.  Its just not a good idea.  There is no way to fix everyone.



Having a baby, especially at a really young age can kill you, too.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Tez there is no solution to the issue.  The BC will stop the pregnancy but if these girls were already having unprotected sex it will do nothing to keep them from getting an STD which is much more serious then a pregnancy.  A baby can be given up for an adoption an STD can kill you.  If there was a solution to the problem then it would have been solved already.  Much like all of lifes troubles there is no solution.  The problem I have is as stated you can't just inject kids with things without letting a parent know.  Its just not a good idea.  There is no way to fix everyone.



I agree that injecting them probably isn't the wisest thing.  But that aside, I'm assuming the bigger picture is birth control in general.  So, going on what you said, one would assume that if STDs are also a concern, then all the more reason for *someone* (again, I dont care who, as long as someone does it) to properly educate them on sex, STDs, the proper use of bc, etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

MJS said:


> I agree that injecting them probably isn't the wisest thing.  But that aside, I'm assuming the bigger picture is birth control in general.  So, going on what you said, one would assume that if STDs are also a concern, then all the more reason for *someone* (again, I dont care who, as long as someone does it) to properly educate them on sex, STDs, the proper use of bc, etc.


yes education is the only thing that can end the cycle and I don't care about that teach it in schools. But this wasn't about education it was about giving kids medication without a parent knowing.  Parental consent aside they didn't even know.  If you say hey this is what we are doing at least I know what's going on but for the parent not to know is shocking to me.  Sending a letter home does not cut it for me.  Letters get lost, kids hide them, ect.  Contact should have been made or it should not have been done until then.  The school all my kids go to have a wellness clinic that has a doctor there and they offer the flu shot for free to all kids but they just don't inject them they send home a letter a parent must sign it saying yes and then the kid gets the shot.  No letter no shot.


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> yes education is the only thing that can end the cycle and I don't care about that teach it in schools. But this wasn't about education it was about giving kids medication without a parent knowing.  Parental consent aside they didn't even know.  If you say hey this is what we are doing at least I know what's going on but for the parent not to know is shocking to me.  Sending a letter home does not cut it for me.  Letters get lost, kids hide them, ect.  Contact should have been made or it should not have been done until then.  The school all my kids go to have a wellness clinic that has a doctor there and they offer the flu shot for free to all kids but they just don't inject them they send home a letter a parent must sign it saying yes and then the kid gets the shot.  No letter no shot.



Would you object to condoms being handed out in schools?  I ask this because if we stop and think about it, those are really not that difficult to get.  Again, I'm with you on the injection.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

granfire said:


> Having a baby, especially at a really young age can kill you, too.



But your far more likely to die from an STD then child birth.  Kids now days have babes at 11 and 12 here without complications.  The AIDS rate in washington DC however is as high as it is in west africa.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

MJS said:


> Would you object to condoms being handed out in schools?  I ask this because if we stop and think about it, those are really not that difficult to get.  Again, I'm with you on the injection.


Id rather they go buy them like I did and feel embarrassed at the gas station just cause its a feeling you never forget but most school already have condoms anyway.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

I am not into giving reps.  It is just something I don't do, however, who was the coward who gave me a negative rep and didn't leave a name.  coward.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

Aside from the 'You'll understand if you have kids!' statement, very offensive to childfree people like myself who don't want kids, and aside from the obviously stupid idea of letting kids remain in the dark if their parents don't want to teach them, I think yes BC should be available to teens without their parents' consent. 
My parents, while dorks in many ways, taught me and my bro all about sex. and they werent like No you cant go get a condom without our permission' or some such crap.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

There is nothing offensive about saying having kids will change how you see things.  It does it cahnges everything in your life.  Can't explain it but it does.  Ment no offense it just a fact.
as to the rest of your post BC is already available to all condoms and are available to anyone that wants them.  That's not the point but again thanks for stopping by


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

Hey blade 96.  Nice to see you.  Happy posting...


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

Thanks little one  Enjoy seeing you and your little pet Ballen back together again.


----------



## billc (Feb 9, 2012)

Ballen is no ones pet blade 96.  He seems a really decent sort from what I have read of his posts.  Stands up and takes the abuse, that is something you can respect...


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

hehe I just call him your little pet because he is so much like you. 

or maybe i can call you two The Twins. x


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 9, 2012)

Blade96 said:


> hehe I just call him your little pet because he is so much like you.
> 
> or maybe i can call you two The Twins. x



Im just glad to be called "little" being over 6 ft tall and 280 lbs and a goatee down to my chest its not often im called little.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)




----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

The other thing that is forgotten is that this is also the media reporting, the newpaper reports a parent as saying they didn't know, it makes a good story. At the moment we have a very big enquiry going on by the Parliamentary Standards commitee (all party on not governmental) into the press so far we've had the press hacking into peoples phones inlcuding a dead murdered teenage girl, police bribes, harrassment of peoples children ( JK Rowling had her young daughter approached at the school gates and a note left by a reporter in her schoolbag) hacking into peoples emails, false and made up  stories etc etc so are we really to believe a report by one of the newspapers concerned that parents really didn't know or shouldn't we reserve a certain amount of cynacism here and actually not take what is reported by them as gospel?  

These type of stories send a frisson of excitement down certain types of people's spines, we have the right wing types who want to show how awful socialism is meaning the government takes over everywhere only of course in this case it isn't socialism, it's the Tories. When parents read this there's usually two thoughts sometimes they run together sometimes it's the parent being self congratulatory, 'I taught my children how to behave so this won't happen to us', these parents are maybe right, maybe not. Indignation is felt on behalf of the poor innocent parents who had their children forcibly given contraceptives, sitting at computers saying how awful it all is. However we also have the social workers, the charity workers who are the ones who are having to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong. It's fine saying the government should do this, not that, it's parents responsiblity, it's this it's that but the bottom line is that while everyone is taking political sides and coming up with fine rhetoric about freedom these girls are falling through the cracks and ending up in situations we in the end will pay for in more ways than money. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ngest-mother-rape-father-child-really-is.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Crowhurst-evicted-drug-fuelled-parties.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ar-olds-become-Britains-youngest-parents.html

Interesting views from the press.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 10, 2012)

All that's fine and good tez and if the new story was a fake then shame on them and reporter should be fired.  But in reality people do fall thru the cracks its life it sucks but you can't help everyone.  If these girls are so uncared for and parentless then the state has legal ways to remove them and help them.  Shooting them up with medication and saying have a nice life we will see you in five years for your next dose is not the answer.  And the doctors saying well we don't need to let parents know this 13 year old seems pretty smart she can decide for herself just don't cut it either.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 10, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> All that's fine and good tez and if the new story was a fake then shame on them and reporter should be fired. But in reality people do fall thru the cracks its life it sucks but you can't help everyone. If these girls are so uncared for and parentless then the state has legal ways to remove them and help them. Shooting them up with medication and saying have a nice life we will see you in five years for your next dose is not the answer. And the doctors saying well we don't need to let parents know this 13 year old seems pretty smart she can decide for herself just don't cut it either.



I didn't say the story was fake at all, I was saying that it's just as likely the newspaper sought out the parents and presented the story in a sensationlist manner.

However if the girls are taken into care, ( if they weren't there already) that defeats those who say that the state should have no say or have to pay for these children and that it's the parents responsibilty. It's still going back on the state and the tax payer.

We don't know that they were given this contraceptive implant and left to their own devices, in fact the truth is we know next to nothing about these girls, everything is supposition, knowing the way things work here I can make educated guesses about the whys and wherefores but the fact remains theres a lot of assuming going on.

One of the foundations of our society here is that everyone can and should be helped, of course people fall through the cracks but it seems that the authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't, if they don't try to do something about a rising number of underage pregnancies, we bear the financial and social cost of looking after them and their babies, if they do something, whatever it is, is going to be wrong. The authorities set up clinics for teenagers, offering advice first, contraception second. Under age sex isn't accepted without comment or care but if it's inevitable then the teenagers have to be able to use measures which encourage safe sex, safe from infections not just pregnancy. Yes we want teenagers not to have sex but we also have to be pragmatic about it. these girls asked for contraception they were forced into it, they chose also not to tell their parents, something that's between their parents and them not really our business. 

The truth is as has already been pointed out, people want the government out of their business...until they need the government to be in it!


----------



## billc (Feb 10, 2012)

Blade 96 I like your signature, "You don't have to blow out someone else's candle in order to let your own flame shine," however...if you blow out their candle, yours in fact would shine more and brighter, so...


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Id rather they go buy them like I did and feel embarrassed at the gas station just cause its a feeling you never forget but most school already have condoms anyway.



So that said, I'm also assuming that you'd be willing to talk to you child about sex, and the proper use of the condoms?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 13, 2012)

MJS said:


> So that said, I'm also assuming that you'd be willing to talk to you child about sex, and the proper use of the condoms?




NO thats what internet porn is for.



Of course I will as a parent its your job to prepare and teach your children.  I hope and Pray they will make good choices.  That and being a cop I plan to scare the boyfriends of my daughters into keeping their pants on


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> NO thats what internet porn is for.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I will as a parent its your job to prepare and teach your children. I hope and Pray they will make good choices. That and being a cop I plan to scare the boyfriends of my daughters into keeping their pants on



What if it's your daughters who do the chasing? To think that boys are the only ones who pressure their girlfriends for sex would be to underestimate girls, boys aren't the only ones with hormones and when a girl wants to have sex she'll be much more 'cold blooded' about getting  it, choosing the hapless lad she'd decided she'll have and chase him down until he's got her just where she wants him!  How many of you actually think _you_ chose your girlfriends?


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> NO thats what internet porn is for.



LMFAO!!!  Thats true...however, that'd be teaching them on the non-use of them. 





> Of course I will as a parent its your job to prepare and teach your children.  I hope and Pray they will make good choices.  That and being a cop I plan to scare the boyfriends of my daughters into keeping their pants on



Thank you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 13, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What if it's your daughters who do the chasing? To think that boys are the only ones who pressure their girlfriends for sex would be to underestimate girls, boys aren't the only ones with hormones and when a girl wants to have sex she'll be much more 'cold blooded' about getting  it, choosing the hapless lad she'd decided she'll have and chase him down until he's got her just where she wants him!  How many of you actually think _you_ chose your girlfriends?



I was a teenage boy I don't think its possible for any creature on earth to think about sex more then that.  But either way me sitting in my Gi polishing and cleaning guns while giving the boy an evil stare is my plane to keep him in check even if she is pressuring him.


----------



## granfire (Feb 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I was a teenage boy I don't think its possible for any creature on earth to think about sex more then that.  But either way me sitting in my Gi polishing and cleaning guns while giving the boy an evil stare is my plane to keep him in check even if she is pressuring him.




MUAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that!

BTW, I got Beach front property in Nevada and a Bridge I can let you have for cheap....


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> MUAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that!
> 
> BTW, I got Beach front property in Nevada and a Bridge I can let you have for cheap....



Shhhhhhhhhhhh don't mess with my plan.  Part 2of is to show him my extensive collection of GPS trackers and micro button cameras and body wires


----------



## granfire (Feb 13, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Shhhhhhhhhhhh don't mess with my plan.  Part 2of is to show him my extensive collection of GPS trackers and micro button cameras and body wires



Unless you bake them into a brownie....


----------



## billc (Feb 13, 2012)

Tell him you volunteer at the local animal shelter neutering animals and that the technique works just as well with guys who disrespect your daughter...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Tell him you volunteer at the local animal shelter neutering animals and that the technique works just as well with guys who disrespect your daughter...



I dunno.....does the health plan cover tweezers and Mercurochrome?


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 13, 2012)

My dad worked on the simple principle of holding the miscreant fellow, that was pressuring my sister, off the floor by his throat until he got the idea that it was better to wait :angel:.  Then there was me ...

... even so, the elder of my two sisters was only eighteen when she had her first, which just goes to prove that you can only hold back the tide so long.


----------

