La Lana  wrote:

Usually to get birth control the female has to undergo a pap smear...and then there's a list of side effects that goes with birth control.  I believe it's important for the parents to be informed on what's going on with their child.  Not that it needs to be their decision, but if my child was having any kind of...procedure...or ending up having rare but possible complications from birth control...I'd want to know what was going on.

The problem with your doctor talking to your parents is that even though the parents may not be able to tell the doctor no, they can still punish the child. "if I find out you went to the free and confidential clinic to get xyz done, you're ______"

Several of my girlfriends in high school would have been anywhere from grounded, sent away (boot camp, boarding school, to their grandparents in wheereverthefuck away from all their friends, etc) or flat out kicked out of their home, despite that doing so would fall under some form of child neglect/abuse, the parents were more adamant about no dick ever going in their kids vagina than actually taking care of their daughter.

So those girls never had condoms on them, never had the pill, never had morning after pills, and they've all got babies now, most while they were still in school. None of them are over the age of 23. Most still living with their parents. They were more afraid of what their parents would do to them if a condom was found in their purse, than actually having a baby (because neither risk actually scares a teen into being abstinent)

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

Unless you put duct tape over your mouth on the way to the dance, it's less than microscopic.

I kid. I kid. Rock on Presley!

(-:

Cherrystone wrote:

Forced birth control.....oh dear God.

You're living in the wrong country and century.

The most ironic part of the forced birth control suggestion, is that we can't even get the majority of parents to agree that birth control is okay and allow our public schools to teach about and offer condoms in the sex Ed class. We're still pushing for abstinence only education.


Put an iud in all our kids arms, but also only teach them to not have sex, rather than teach them what the fuck was implanted into their arm and why.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Put an iud in all our kids arms, but also only teach them to not have sex, rather than teach them what the fuck was implanted into their arm and why.

huh??

IUD = intrauterine device

Laura UnBound wrote:

The most ironic part of the forced birth control suggestion, is that we can't even get the majority of parents to agree that birth control is okay and allow our public schools to teach about and offer condoms in the sex Ed class. We're still pushing for abstinence only education.


Put an iud in all our kids arms, but also only teach them to not have sex, rather than teach them what the fuck was implanted into their arm and why.

This wreaks of men in elected positions making ignorant or politically motivated decisions about women's health issues.

We still behave as a primitive culture in so many ways. I'm thrilled we elected Tammy Baldwin to the U.S. Senate.

(For the most obvious reasons but also because I delivered to over 600 doors for her.)

UltimateAppeal wrote:
huh??

IUD = intrauterine device

Forgive me, many people, when referring to long-term contraceptives that have to get shoved into your body really uncomfortably, use "iud" and "implant" interchangeably, because they're basically the same thing. At least in the planned parenthood, et al circles I have to frequent. You ask a nurse at the clinic what an implanon is and they'll go "it's an iud, but in your arm"

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

I guess you haven't read much of what he posts.

I could make assumptions, but I'd rather just ask.

Laura UnBound wrote:

The problem with your doctor talking to your parents is that even though the parents may not be able to tell the doctor no, they can still punish the child. "if I find out you went to the free and confidential clinic to get xyz done, you're ______"

Several of my girlfriends in high school would have been anywhere from grounded, sent away (boot camp, boarding school, to their grandparents in wheereverthefuck away from all their friends, etc) or flat out kicked out of their home, despite that doing so would fall under some form of child neglect/abuse, the parents were more adamant about no dick ever going in their kids vagina than actually taking care of their daughter.

So those girls never had condoms on them, never had the pill, never had morning after pills, and they've all got babies now, most while they were still in school. None of them are over the age of 23. Most still living with their parents. They were more afraid of what their parents would do to them if a condom was found in their purse, than actually having a baby (because neither risk actually scares a teen into being abstinent)

I guess it's just hard for me to relate to those situations...I had awful periods twice a month when I was young so the doc suggested birth control, and my mom ever had an issue...

The problem I'd have with birth control and not knowing would be some of the side effects...like when I got an IUD...instead of getting a period every month I'd just cramp so bad I'd vomit..EVERY month.  I'd be scared if that was happening to my child and I didn't know why.  There's also some conditions someone may have that shouldn't be intertwined with birth control...if a teen really wants the birth control they may not be totally honest about that stuff.

I'd teach abstinence first, but if that's not in the cards...then I believe people should be realistic, and be open to birth control, and condoms.  Some people are more concerned about protecting their abstinence agenda then they are about actually protecting their kids.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

You obviously don't see the reality. The children starve anyway while the tax payers money goes to by the mother fancy new designer clothes, tattoos, cigarettes, etc. They know they'll get a bigger paycheck with every child they have so they keep having children. Fuck that, go get a job.


Exactly

You have to prove you're a worthy parent and can provide for a child before adopting one so why not put the same restraints on people before they have a child of their own?

Do you know how hard it is to go get a job these days? My best friend's husband had neck surgery a couple months ago and to pick up the slack she searched for a job. Every day she'd fill out an application some place or another. McDonalds, gas stations, malls, no where was exempt. She had a husband to care for and a son to feed. It took her 4 months for someone to even give her a chance. Jobs aren't given out like fucking candy. Before you or anyone else throws the "get a job" card, remember that people are TRYING.

Oh, and


I've found this very fitting lately.

Model Sarah wrote:
Birth control is not readily available. The fact we live in a first world nation and this is is an issue is just frightening. What does it say about us when me, a healthy independent 30 year old woman, has trouble accessing it. Even if I wanted to get it, I simply cant afford the pap smear to get it. I have no health insurance because I work for myself and I cant pay astronomical rate of $400 per month for it even if I wanted to get private health insurance.

Now, think about the circumstances of when a teenager is under their parents house and has to live by their rules which may include abstinence. Where does that leave them? They cant go to the clinic on their own or buy anything.

There's something seriously wrong with the country we live in right now and I hope it changes throughout my lifetime.

Birth control is free for the unemployed here and health insurance starts at 60 Euros if you are employed but in the lower income bracket. Naturally there are less teenage pregnancies and abortions in France than over the pond (if I remember correctly about half per capita).

I get the impression Americans in general prefer that their society would rather drop 50.000 dollars on the results of teenage pregnancies (higher poverty, more welfare recipients, more prison inmates) than 500 dollars to prevent it (sex education, free or affordable contraception). The latter would, in the minds of a majority of the American voters, be "socialist" and they don't want that.

So if you're 16 and hook up with that cute boy next door, well tough luck! You better pay the consequences for the rest of your life - and your community with you. It's what Americans consider freedom and individual responsibility.

Katarina N. wrote:

Birth control is free for the unemployed here and health insurance starts at 60 Euros if you are employed but in the lower income bracket. Naturally there are less teenage pregnancies and abortions in France than over the pond (if I remember correctly about half per capita).

I get the impression Americans in general prefer that their society would rather drop 50.000 dollars on the results of teenage pregnancies (higher poverty, more welfare recipients, more prison inmates) than 500 dollars to prevent it (sex education, free or affordable contraception). The latter would, in the minds of a majority of the American voters, be "socialist" and they don't want that.

So if you're 16 and hook up with that cute boy next door, well tough luck! You better pay the consequences for the rest of your life - and your community with you. It's what Americans consider freedom and individual responsibility.

I totally agree with your point. 

Not sure where you mean as "here", but birth control is free to everyone in England regardless of whether you are employed or not.

_ Robyn Elizabeth _ wrote:
I totally agree with your point. 

Not sure where you mean as "here", but birth control is free to everyone in England regardless of whether you are employed or not.

I was referring to France.

England is an interesting case, while contraception and abortion are readily available (unlike in the US), there are still a lot of teenage pregnancies happening there - it seems almost a lifestyle choices in many families that have been on the public dole for generations. Cranking out one kid after another and living in nice houses paid for by you and me.

I'm sure you too remember the story about that 11 year old who became a proud dad. Things like that are far from the exception unfortunately, but the root causes aren't the same as in the US.

Katarina N. wrote:
but the root causes aren't the same as in the US.

I'm pretty sure you'd find they're exactly the same here.

Carlos Occidental wrote:

I'm pretty sure you'd find they're exactly the same here.

I doubt it, I think Katarina that the causes are different, for example, as mentioned birth control is free and sex ed taught in all schools so it can't be due to a lack of knowledge or access to birth control here. Whereas, I believe that in the US birth control is expensive, not covered by the less extensive medical insurence and the level of sex ed in schools varies widely.

Here we have a welfare system that will give single teenage mothers there own house so there sadly is a financial incentive, while your single mothers will get some help, it will not be nearly to the same level as here.

I wanted to look up the teenage pregnancy rates and found this wikipedia page.  Interestingly England does seem to have one of the highest rates in Europe, the US has the highest in the developed world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

Carlos Occidental wrote:
I'm pretty sure you'd find they're exactly the same here.

There is no generational welfare system in the US that allowes people to exist on the public dole their entire life. As I understand it welfare is limited to five years over your lifetime, after that you get nothing.

Given that Britain doesn't lack available contraception like the US, I'd wager it has even more to do with the social impact of poverty. These kids grow up in an environment of dependance, in undereducated households and with parents and relatives that teach them no concept of self initiative. They might not live on the streets or in trailer parks like they do in the US with its lack of a welfare system, but the mindset that is engraved in them from birth is the same.

Cranking out kids is merely a symptom of their inability to take charge of their own life and set goals for their future. They grow up in an environment where there is no future.

Katarina N. wrote:
There is no generational welfare system in the US that allowes people to exist on the public dole their entire life. As I understand it welfare is limited to five years over your lifetime, after that you get nothing.

That would be your first mistake.  There are generations that have been on dole, will be on dole, and all future generations of that line will be on dole.  Ten's of thousands have lived this way since welfare started. 

Same here.  See Video, and/or read article:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/Oliv … r-america/
Or, type "generations on welfare" into Google, and get ready to see red. Here's another:
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mep … rapr02.pdf

Katarina N. wrote:
Cranking out kids is merely a symptom of their inability to take charge of their own life and set goals for their future. They grow up in an environment where there is no future.

Same here.

With the exception of free birth control (Condoms can be bought for a buck or two), I see little difference.
Teach a man to fish...
Or, just feel sorry for him, and give him a free meal.  For life.  And his family.

twoharts wrote:
then why have i read so many articles recently saying that IUDs are the best form of birth control? far more effective than pills or condoms. or at least that's what i thought i read in the articles.

if a minor isn't allowed to make major decisions for themselves until they are an adult (18 in many states i believe) then, yeah, why not at least consider forced birth control? put all the options on the table at least.

My boyfriend's daughter is a result of a defective IUD.

As well, most doctors won't put IUDs in anyone who hasn't had kids because it can wreck an unstretched uterus.

DarcieK wrote:

My boyfriend's daughter is a result of a defective IUD.

As well, most doctor's won't put IUDs in anyone who hasn't had kids because it can wreck an unstretched uterus.

I know three women who got pregnant from a defective IUD.

-Nicole- wrote:

I know three women who got pregnant from a defective IUD.

Yep. I've had friends who have had to have them removed because they caused too many problems for them.

IUDs can be effective, but they are not for everyone. Some men obviously don't release there are multiple types of birth control because there are multiple types of women. What works for one may not work for the other.

DarcieK wrote:

Yep. I've had friends who have had to have them removed because they caused too many problems for them.

IUDs can be effective, but they are not for everyone. Some men obviously don't release there are multiple types of birth control because there are multiple types of women. What works for one may not work for the other.

Men believe that it's a woman's job to take care of not getting pregnant - but boy do they love to tell us what to do when we do.

Katarina N. wrote:
Birth control is free for the unemployed here and health insurance starts at 60 Euros if you are employed but in the lower income bracket. Naturally there are less teenage pregnancies and abortions in France than over the pond (if I remember correctly about half per capita).

I get the impression Americans in general prefer that their society would rather drop 50.000 dollars on the results of teenage pregnancies (higher poverty, more welfare recipients, more prison inmates) than 500 dollars to prevent it (sex education, free or affordable contraception). The latter would, in the minds of a majority of the American voters, be "socialist" and they don't want that.

So if you're 16 and hook up with that cute boy next door, well tough luck! You better pay the consequences for the rest of your life - and your community with you. It's what Americans consider freedom and individual responsibility.

Yes, i'm aware of that. That is why I said it's very sad we, as a first world nation, do not have access to birth control the way it should be. Also, I dont think it's fair to compare numbers with France or England to the U.S. we have a significantly larger population. However, the point is correct. Education, accessible heath care, and an environment that doesnt promote something unnatural like abstinence are things that would go a long way in preventing a lot of this.

Model Sarah wrote:

Yes, i'm aware of that. That is why I said it's very sad we, as a first world nation, do not have access to birth control the way it should be. Also, I dont think it's fair to compare numbers with France or England to the U.S. we have a significantly larger population. However, the point is correct. Education, accessible heath care, and an environment that doesnt promote something unnatural like abstinence are things that would go a long way in preventing a lot of this.

I was talking about statistics per capita, which means per person. For example, these are the abortion rates per 1000 inhabitants:

United States - 4.0
France - 3.2
Germany - 1.4
Britain - 3.3
Finland - 1.9
Canada - 2.7
Japan - 1.8

All of these countries have universal health care and readily available contraception and abortion, yet perform significantly less abortions than the US per capita.

The American policies to fight abortion effectively cause more abortions.

-Nicole- wrote:
I know three women who got pregnant from a defective IUD.

Well they shouldn't be sharing the darned thing.

Katarina N. wrote:

Birth control is free for the unemployed here and health insurance starts at 60 Euros if you are employed but in the lower income bracket. Naturally there are less teenage pregnancies and abortions in France than over the pond (if I remember correctly about half per capita).

I get the impression Americans in general prefer that their society would rather drop 50.000 dollars on the results of teenage pregnancies (higher poverty, more welfare recipients, more prison inmates) than 500 dollars to prevent it (sex education, free or affordable contraception). The latter would, in the minds of a majority of the American voters, be "socialist" and they don't want that.

So if you're 16 and hook up with that cute boy next door, well tough luck! You better pay the consequences for the rest of your life - and your community with you. It's what Americans consider freedom and individual responsibility.

Birth control is easily accessible in the US. Planned Parenthood gives it away for free. Some schools provide access to condoms. The problem is that sec is still treated as being so taboo in American households. Kids see it in movies, on TV and hear about it constantly in music but parents can't even bring themselves to have open and honest conversations about sex.

Little Queenie wrote:
Birth control is easily accessible in the US. Planned Parenthood gives it away for free. Some schools provide access to condoms. The problem is that sec is still treated as being so taboo in American households. Kids see it in movies, on TV and hear about it constantly in music but parents can't even bring themselves to have open and honest conversations about sex.

Look no further than the taboo of extramarital affairs that can bring down a former US decorated general and CIA director vs. no one giving shit about such things in France for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/opinion/f … index.html

If such sexual puritanism affects the higher echelon of society imagine the lack of information and prejudice in classrooms or the workplace.

And yes every dollar invested in sex ed and easy to access contraceptives would payback tenfold in less social costs.

For example no one mentions the dip in serious crime (murder/rapes/etc...) we experience since the mid 1990s is due to Roe vs. Wade and the fact legal abortion resulted in way less unwanted children, especially among minorities, in turn resulting in less crime 20 years later.

Katarina N. wrote:

Men believe that it's a woman's job to take care of not getting pregnant - but boy do they love to tell us what to do when we do.

Amen+1000

Jules NYC wrote:
It's pretty simple.

If you fuck and can menstruate, you can have a baby.
Children change your life.
Unwanted children didn't ask to be born.

... and if you are starving to death and can barely survive,
decide to fuck without a condom to prevent disease and to prevent a pregnancy,
then you are a dumb, selfish fuck.

"... but I have so much LOVE to give!"
*Dumb fucks that have children they can't raise*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcLy8h9grQ

I wonder how many Grandmamas are raising their daughter's kids.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaPHPQt91w8

So only poor people are shit parents?

Hmm, I think you will find that the ability to be a good parent is not directly linked to how much money you have.

_ Robyn Elizabeth _ wrote:

So only poor people are shit parents?

Hmm, I think you will find that the ability to be a good parent is not directly linked to how much money you have.

Preach!

_ Robyn Elizabeth _ wrote:
So only poor people are shit parents?

Hmm, I think you will find that the ability to be a good parent is not directly linked to how much money you have.

You made an inference that is not correct.

To answer your question, no.
Bad rich parents can sexually abuse, ignore and (insert bad behavior here) just the same.  They can also send their kids off to boarding school instead dumping them off at Grandmama's house:)

Dysfunctional homes are dysfunctional homes.

You need Maslow's basic base tier to start.
Start raising a child in a healthy, functional home.

I see sex is in the bottom tier; that OBVIOUSLY refers to adults, not little kids.

Food/shelter/etc.

T wrote:
Preach!

Obviously.

It's just a shit thing to do to have a kid grow up with worrying about food/shelter, period.

Not fair to the child/children.