<p>There’s got to be longterm consequences about BC, especially when one starts so young. Isn’t BC for older women who have bored children and are closing the factories ? </p>
<p>What happen to young women who took BC to be sexually active then settles down, get married and decide to have kids ? Is there medical statistics on the births, complications and health of childs borned to mother who had BC ?</p>
<p>edvest1 said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read that there is a problem with the health of babies born to mothers who have certain sexually transmitted diseases and are HIV positive or have AIDS. In that sense, the use of condoms by the teen decreases these complications and health risks to all her children.</p>
<p>The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. </p>
<p>The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.</p>
<p>Teen births also are detrimental to the mother and the taxpayers.</p>
<p>Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school (only one-third receive a high school diploma) and only 1.5% have a college degree by age 30.7 Teen mothers are more likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/genlfact.asp#suffers[/url]”>http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/genlfact.asp#suffers</a></p>
<p>I read several articles on what influences birth weight and use of BC by the mother was not mentioned. Seems smoking cigarettes, diabetes and prenatal health care are some of the most directly related factors in above and below average birth weights.</p>
<p>What about those who got BC as young as 11,12 then later stopped to have children, how do those children do health wise ? in learning and aptitude ?</p>
<p>The pill became available in 1961. Those who reached puberty in the 1960s and early 70’s and had access to the pill would be in their mid 40s to mid 50’s. I’ve looked at infant mortality and birth rate data and mother’s use of the pill before conception is not listed as a health factor.</p>
<p>Many women of that era (and I am of that era) waited fairly late in life to have children, thus they used BC for an extended time. I have not ever seen any data that links the mother’s prior use of BC to intelligence (or lack of intelligence) of her children or their learning abilities.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting update:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21577133/?GT1=10547[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21577133/?GT1=10547</a></p>
<p>In a democracy, that seems to say it all. Taxpayers would rather not have the pregnancies and, since they think BC will help, they are for it in spite of other misgivings. </p>
<p>This way the parent can still have a say by not giving consent to treatment at the health clinic if they don’t want their daughter to get BC, but the other parents can also have a say as to their daughter if they consent knowing that the treatment can include BC. </p>
<p>It accomodates everyone, except those who want to impose their views on others.</p>
<p>No, it does NOT accomodate everyone. What about parents who might like to have their child given something for a headache but don’t want to sign off on birth control pills? Unless the school requires separate permission for BC, then they are making it very difficult for parents to sign off on Tums or Tylenol without also giving permission for BC pills or patches.</p>
<p>And I certainly wouldn’t call it “imposing their views on others” if people think that this is a terrible idea. I also think that beating children is a bad idea, and I DO believe in imposing this view on others.</p>
<p>The school is wrong in bundling BC with a run of the mill parental consent form we have been familiar with. Handing out birth control pills is not in the same category as giving tums or tylenol. A bad way to slide it in with the treatment form. Once you signed, you won’t know if your daughter is getting tums or the pill. </p>
<p>Agree with SJmom that some ideas should uphold on principle, and not give in because it saves money, or is convenient.</p>
<p>About the poll 07Dad refers to, it never gave any details how the survey was conducted. Also when I took the MSNBC live vote on the same webpage, it said 50% against, 15% consent if parent consented and only 35% favored it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems they are in the same postion of a parent who would like to have BC available to their daughter through the clinic if the clinic is barred from dispensing BC to meet your view of what is appropriate. Sometimes you can’t get what you want.</p>
<p>It seems each parent’s legitimate concern should be for their own child. If the parents have raised their daughter “right” from those parents’ prospective that sex is wrong for her at that age and they trust that the message has “taken,” those parents should have no concern that their daughter could ask for BC, because she wouldn’t. So, just give your consent and she gets Tums and Tylenol.</p>
<p>Then ALL parents’ wishes are covered because your daughter get Tums and Tylenol if she asks for it (which is what you want) and the others can get the BC if they ask for it (which is OK with those parernts whether as a matter of beliefs or health concerns). It is called choice FOR ALL PARENTS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This health system upholds the principle of parental choice. It takes the disclosed position that health care includes BC upon request. ALL parent have the choice to consent to having their child treated at the health clinic or not. </p>
<p>Is the “priniciple” you refer to that one set or group of parents get to dictate what is appropriate health care for other people’s children and get to dictate what other parents can and cannot do or permit in making their parental decisions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that AP polls are usually random sampling while voting on MSNBC isn’t a random sample but measures the responses of those people with computers who visit MSNBC and are self-motivated to vote. Random sampling is a more valid measuring tool.</p>
<p>07Dad, in your book is there ever a bad choice? Like beating of children is just a parental choice for one set of parents? Who are we to impose standards ? </p>
<p>Is it a liberal’s goal in life to achieve freedom without boundary ? That’s close to a society without rules. Is that what you want?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I told my S to look at it this way. In any given situation there may be positive choices that add to/improve/better the situation and/or elevate and better the people involved and negative choices that make the situation worse and/or injure or debase those involved. I suggested that a proper “compass” was to never select the negative choice. </p>
<p>I also stressed that there is tremendous common sense in the “Golden Rule” and the concept of judge not, lest you be judged. I also have addressed that secular law is to provide the minimum rules of conduct to allow society to function, secular law should be obeyed or recourse made to the elective process to change it and that many things aren’t and should not be legislated. To me, that is about as conservative as you can get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the Bible there are repeated accounts of murder and mayham visited on the child by the parent and sometime at the direction of God. I’m sure that you have heard of “spare the rod, spoil the child” philosophy. You may also be aware that there was a influential author Dr. Spock who wrote on raising children and absolutely counseled against hitting a child as part of parenting techniques.</p>
<p>Seems there is a wide range on thought on the issue. In my state, secular law does set a standard as to “beating.” As I have stated, that law should be obeyed. But, as you know, some parents still “beat” their children and the enforcement by child protective services is by necessity highly subjective.</p>
<p>I personally believe that corporal punishment has little role in parenting, although in my generation getting licks at school in Junior High seemed to help provide order. However, I don’t believe there are no circumstances where corporal punishment would be appropriate, including if one sibling was forcing sex on another sibling. Apparantly you think there are no such circumstances. Does that make you a “liberal”?</p>
<p>
Don’t know, but not that I’m aware of. Anarchists want no boundaries. Those on the fringe (at both extremes) think they know what is right for everyone and want to set their beliefs as the boundaries and call it “freedom.” Those are the ones that pose the biggest threat. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. See above. But “the rules” are secular rules based on practical necessity, not one group’s transitory idea of how “right thinking” people should behave.</p>
<p>Handing out birth control pills to 11 years girls who want it without informing the parent is giving freedom without boundary to not even adults but the under-aged. That is fairly extreme to me.</p>
<p>A question for parents here: Would YOU give YOUR 11-13yo D birth control pills? I doubt it. </p>
<p>You see, it’s always for “some else’s daughter.” </p>
<p>Being protected and supervised so they would not even think of having sex at that age is what is best for OUR daughters. </p>
<p>But other people’s daughters don’t deserve what’s best–so just put them on the pill so at least they won’t get pregnant. . .</p>
<p>Doesn’t every girl deserve what is best for her?</p>
<p>How many middle school girls have the self discipline/maturity to comply with the daily dosing required of The Pill, especially if they are also trying to keep it a secret from their parent(s)? The reliability of The Pill declines dramatically in the absence of strict patient compliance. I could easily see how a very young girl (and yes, that’s what they are in middle school) could be lulled into a false sense of security because she takes The Pill “most days”. Who insures patient compliance? Will the clinics provide close medical follow up on these girls who are issued hormones? Will they run periodic pregnancy tests? Blood tests to check for dangerous side effects? What happens if someone’s eleven year old daughter develops a dangerous blood clot, as a result of having been prescribed birth control without parental knowledge? Who’s legally responsible if the child suffers serious health complications as result of having taken these hormones?</p>
<p>I think parents should have the option to limit the medical care their children receive through such clinics. Personally, I would have no problem with a clinic professional giving my child Tylenol for pain, or an anti-acid for stomach upset. But I would also want to know that he/she was seen at the clinic that day, and for what purpose. Permission to allow your child to be seen should not automatically equate to agreeing to be kept in the dark.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that pumping girls with hormones at that age is the best idea. MD’s still aren’t sure what the effects of estrogen are on grown women, let alone 11 yr. olds.</p>
<p>There’s too many snakes in this pit, let alone the moral breakdowns blatently ignored by the liberals. Parents should ban together and demand that school to stop.</p>
<p>edvest1 said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which of the 10 Commandments are being broken by these sexually-active young girls?</p>
<p>edvest1 also said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps your California is the place to start on the Moral Crusade. </p>
<p>Per the *Dallas Morning News *dated Monday, November 5, 2007:</p>
<p>California has experienced a 47% decrease in teen births in a time span where the national average decrease was 33% and Texas experienced only a 19% decrease. Texas has the highest teen birth rate in 2004, the last year for which a state by state comparison is available. Since 1991, the year that the teen birth rate peaked, California went down from 11th highest to 24th highest in teen births and Texas went up from 5th to 1st highest. Also, the last time teen pregnancy rates were reported was 2000 and Texas was 5th highest with 101 pregnancies per 1,000 girls compared with the US average of 84. </p>
<p>Why the 28% difference in decreases?</p>
<p>California state law gives teens the right to obtain BC without parents’ permission and obtain the BC free at community clinics or private doctors’ offices regardless of income level. In California, if sex education is taught in public school, state law mandates that both abstinence and BC methods be taught.</p>
<p>In Texas, state law mandates that if sex education is taught the teacher must present abstinence as the “preferred choice…for unmarried persons of school age” and must devote more attention to abstinence that to “any other behavior.” That teacher must emphasize that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective method of preventing pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, HIV/AIDS and “the emotional trauma associated with adolescent sexual activity.” The teacher must teach the “human use reality rates” of failure for the various birth control methods, not “theoretical laboratory rates.” </p>
<p>Under Texas law, parents have a right to pull their child from the public sex education class. Texas law does not specifically give minors the right to consent for themselves to BC and for 10 years the state legislature has tried to prevent that if a teen on Medicare sees a doctor or a low income teen goes to a clinic that receives federal family planning grants. Federal law overrides these efforts, and teens can and do receive BC without parental permission, but public school students are not taught about that.</p>
<p>Texas: The Moral Utopia.</p>
<p>Odds of 07Dad getting a useful response to that: approximately 0%.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most social conservatives normally argue on a more ideological bent. There is a widespread refusal to recognize that this is the real world, and that if one really truly wants to reduce suffering, as opposed to be smug and ideologically “right”, then the choices with regards to birth control and sexual education are clear.</p>
<p>If this is the “real world” then where do we go from here? BC for 10 year olds? For 9 year olds? Where do you draw the line? There is a moral aspect in the sense that adults are responsible for protecting children. If it is against the law in Maine for children under the age of 14 to engage in sex, then it should be against the law to provide BC. Seems clear to me, but then I’m just a mom.</p>
<p>No, sjmom, we go in whatever direction minimizes suffering and societal problems. I’m sorry, but it’s pretty clear that the kind of abstinence policies in Texas and such places actually increase problems, not solve them. I’d be in favor of any policy that would offer the best outcome for society, but obviously teaching abstinence isn’t it.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that we are talking about teaching abstinence here – I would say that the odds of eleven year old girls (and they ARE little girls at that age) being interested in sex for its own sake is nil. I’m assuming that you are an 18 year old male – believe it or not, not all teenage girls (let alone 11 or 12 year old girls) are interested. I would say that we are talking about abuse and neglect. </p>
<p>But let’s continue your line of reasoning. If you are saying that eleven year old girls won’t abstain from sex just because of abstinence instruction, then what about 10 year olds? How about if we just prescribe powerful hormones (in the form of BC pills or patches) to every girl who reaches menarche? Just in case they are overcome with passion? Or maybe we should just prescribe equally powerful hormones to all males who reach puberty, just in case they act inappropriately?</p>
<p>And then we’ll start talking about 9 year olds etc – just in case they are victims of abuse. </p>
<p>If I’m still on CC when you are married and a parent – please put me out of my misery! But I will challenge you to rethink your opinion on this topic when you are raising children. It’s a normal (and necessary!) human instinct to protect our children – the world looks very different when you are a parent.</p>