Quickies!: Susan Boyle Is Funny Too

SterlingSilver36
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 04:25 pm: [report]

Let’s say a seventeen year old has sex and the condom breaks.
Is the question whether or not they are old enough to make the decision to take plan b? Yes, they are.
If a 17 year old is raped.
Yes, they are old enough to make that decision.
As someone who turned 18 a few months ago I can tell you there isn’t that much of a difference between being 17 and being 18.
I will admit, and I know this from my work with Planned Parenthood for the past 4+ years, there are those who choose to use Plan B as their main form of birth control and, yes that is dangerous. But women of all ages are doing it and I dont think 17 year olds will be more likely to do that than other women.

Point is: 17 year olds ARE old enough to make the decision to try and keep themselves pregnancy free as well as they can while still engaging in sexual behavior.

40yrolddad
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 04:50 pm: [report]

“Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, is now available to 17-year-olds without parental consent.”

FOOLS!  don’t you people realize that “Plan B” is a GATEWAY DRUG!  sure, some Hollywood nut jobs will try to convince you that preventing teen pregnancy doesn’t hurt anybody but within a few months they’ll be wanting to breathe when they have a cold and the next thing you know they’ll be taking {*GASP!*} ADVIL!!!  (“RESPECT MY A-TOR-A-TAY!!!”)

won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!!!

tabby
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 04:56 pm: [report]

@SterlingSilver36—Oh, yes there are some of us in our mid-20’s who used Plan B as a primary form of birth control for a while. I don’t blame the 17 year olds at all.

cougiex
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:15 pm: [report]

Regardless of what I actually think about Plan B,

If someone is raped, generally they should be going to a doctor about it anyway for a rape kit and (I assume) can get a prescription there. 

Or goodness forbid at least have someone over 18 go pick it up for them.  At 17 I have a hard time believing that someone doesn’t have ANY 18 year old friends.  How else do teens smoke or drink?  Sure it may not be legal but that doesn’t stop it from happening - someone older gets it for them.  It’s not like the pharmacist is going to watch someone take the first pill and make them come back in for the second one!

I can see in a few years the argument “A 16 year old is not much different from a 17 year old.  Why can’t she get access to plan B?”... Sigh.

PinkRanger
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:21 pm: [report]

@cougiex:youd rather they get it by illegal means? teens are gonna have sex, whether we like it or not. at least this helps them stay on track in one way.

cougiex
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:24 pm: [report]

@Pink.  Kids are going to drink and smoke whether we like it or not too.  Should we be giving them packs and kegs?

gevlife
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:31 pm: [report]

they make it sound like plan b is an abortion pill. its not- if you’re pregnant you stay pregnant. whoever wrote that little blurb is making some dangerous implications.

PinkRanger
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:33 pm: [report]

@cougiex:well, if they got alcohol poisoning would you deny them medical care just because they were underage? we’re not telling them to have sex, we’re giving them help when they need it.

joyy
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 05:57 pm: [report]

@cougiex - sometimes a condom breaks on a Friday night and you need to take Plan B as soon as possible for it to be effective.  Yes, sexually active girls should be seeing healthcare professionals to stay on top of their reproductive health, but sometimes #&@$% goes down on a weekend.

cougiex
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 06:21 pm: [report]

@Pink - In general the “medical care” given an inebriated person is a far cry different than birth control.  Last I checked, pregnancy is generally not a life-threatening condition while alcohol poisoning by definition is.

Sonic
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 08:36 pm: [report]

@ cougiex:  Why shouldn’t a 16 year old have access to it?  Teens as young as 14 (and sadly much younger) are already sexually active and being that young and careless, they can become pregnant.  Pregnancy could be risky for teens that young for both the teen mother (she’s not yet done growing) and the baby (very low birth weights, premature births, etc.) and so it actually does become a medical concern.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with their actions, I’d like to support as many options as are available for them to avoid pregnancy.  Do you think making it available will make them more likely to have sex?  I think that the ones who refrain from sex already understand the risks and choose to refrain.  I am sure there would of course be a few teens who might engage in sex if this became available, but I think having this pill available wouldn’t flip a switch on that would make them have sex if they’d already made the decision to wait.  You said kids are going to drink and smoke as well, should we give them kegs and packs?  Again, I stand by the fact that for the teens who have already made the decision to not smoke and drink, this wouldn’t change anything.  Having something available will not change much if you have been well educated and can use that education to strengthen your resolve one way or another (to not have sex or to have safe sex).   

@ pink ranger:  I definitely agree with you that teens will have sex and this option should be open to them.

Sources cited:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17562148?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18576937?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

just to name 2 most recent articles (published last 2 yrs)

shelleatualive
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 09:16 pm: [report]

if kids at 17 are responsible enough to use contraceptives we should throw it at them…. both A and B

saysay
wrote on April 23 2009 @ 09:56 pm: [report]

The question with lowering the age on something like this isn’t if 17 year olds are old or wise enough to have this option available, every teen is different.  The question for me is when does it all end? In a few months or even years someone will suggest lowering it to 16, and then 15 after that.  I think this is the beginning of a slippery slope.  I think about myself as a teenager and I was incredibly stupid at times, and not at all informed enough to be having sex, nor were any of my friends.  I’m sure that not every teenager is like I was at 17, but I’m fairly sure the majority are.  When you are constantly giving young people nets and things to bail them out of the stupid situations they get themselves in, they become less and less concerned about making potentially harmful decisions.  They can throw caution to the wind because they know that they can pop over to walgreens in the morning and get a quick fix.  Most teens are for more concerned about getting pregnant than they are with getting STD’s, which is why they use condoms, but now they don’t even have to worry about that, and it’s not a good thing.  As a teenager fear is sometimes the only thing that dissuades them from a harmful situation because they don’t know enough not do it based on logic.

Sonic
wrote on April 24 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]

@ saysay:  I can understand your point about the safety net loosening inhibitions, but I would like to use an analogy to try and explain my position.

If we pretend the emergency contraceptive is a seatbelt, they are both there to prevent something - pregnancy or injury from a car accident.

By your reasoning then, by having every car have a seatbelt, people would drink and drive more because they feel they have a safety net.  I am not sure that makes sense to me.  People who are foolish will drink and drive regardless of whether or not the seatbelt is there.  People who choose not to drink and drive will simply not, regardless of whether or not the seatbelt is there, because they understand the risks and take responsibility. 

I feel using using the logic algorithm you’ve provided is akin to saying that if for example, we provide free condoms, teens will have more sex and I believe that based on what I’ve read, that’s untrue.  I still stand by my prior statement that those who have made the decision to not have sex are not going to be swayed with more available “safety nets”.  Fear is a weak leash and is not a long-term solution or otherwise those brimstone and fire sermons about abstinence would be effective and they aren’t.  Education is the only way to prevent sexually active, careless teenagers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t provide these contraceptives or condoms to prevent pregnancies and the spread of STDs. 

Source cited:  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1615376

SterlingSilver36
wrote on April 24 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]

I dont think they’d lower it to a super young age. I doubt they would lower the age past the age of consent, that would just not make sense from the standing of the lawmakers.
Still, who cares what the age is. If they are having sex they should be able to take on all the responsibilities that come with that and Plan B should be included just like other forms of birth control.