Foo - Birth Control for Middle Schoolers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_re_us/middle_school_contraceptives

Holy crap! :o

Oh man, your Bush signature is not happy about this at all. Abstinence education for the win.

Well, it sucks that they have to do it, but good on them for trying to deal with the issue. Hopefully they will also be increasing the sex education they are currently giving their students.

Oh man, your Bush signature is not happy about this at all. Abstinence education for the win.

Well, it sucks that they have to do it, but good on them for trying to deal with the issue. Hopefully they will also be increasing the sex education they are currently giving their students.


I don't think kids should be having sex at age 11. Call me a prude.

I don't think kids should be having sex at age 11. Call me a prude.

OMG..I have finally found somethig Portis and I agree on.
Is there a cold front headed towards the 7th circle yet?

Hey, if they are going to have sex, they should be encouraged to protect themselves.



"More than half of Galveston schoolchildren said they’ve had sex by the ninth grade" http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=1026e814789941cb



What's wrong with it?

I don't think kids should be having sex at age 11. Call me a prude.
I'll 2nd this!

Prude :D

.

I don't think kids should be having sex at age 11. Call me a prude.

I agree with you, but if they are having sex, the school shouldn't turn a blind eye. While discouraging it, they should be providing more sex education, both abstinence, and safe sex. And part of safe sex education/policy is providing the means for safe sex, they can either do it by getting the parents involved more, or by handing it out themselves.

I don't think kids should be having sex at age 11. Call me a prude.

Neither do I, but you know what? It's happening despite all the abstinence training and preaching.

Either they have a good head on their shoulders and know better than to experiment, or they are going to do it because they are not supposed to. In either case, arming them with facts is (IMHO) a far superior method than telling them "No, don't do it!"

What about the homeshcoolers? What are they going to do?

And on a serious note, 11 is too young to have sex. Seems like they are enabling the kids just a bit.

It looks from the article, that the kids were enabled by someone else, the school is trying to deal with the problem. Internet porn is just a click away for these kids, adults profiting from this awful stuff are a huge part of the problem.

I agree that 11 is too young, the school is not the problem, they are just trying to help, maybe where the parents are clueless??

I agree with you, but if they are having sex, the school shouldn't turn a blind eye. While discouraging it, they should be providing more sex education, both abstinence, and safe sex. And part of safe sex education/policy is providing the means for safe sex, they can either do it by getting the parents involved more, or by handing it out themselves.


There's this thing called parents. EDIT> Actually there USED TO BE this thing called parents. Aren't many of us left.

http://louisville.edu/student/localresources/images/Parents-1.jpg

What's wrong with it?

The number of teenage pregnancy's that will eventually result from such a policy. Giving out birth control and other services in this manner, and at this age indirectly helps to "mainstream" sex overall at a younger age.

Then...(IF the "mother" doesn't abort the baby) the kid will probably be raised by a teenage mom, probably not have a father figure in his or her life, and more than likely will live a life close to or in poverty. More than likely the mother will be immature and not ready to properly care for the child. More than likely, the child will have emotional, behavioral, and social issues. To top it off...these kids, more than likely (in some way shape or form) will affect the lives of my kids adversely, and kids of other parents who want to raise their kids the right way.

Thats whats f!@#in wrong with it.

The number of teenage pregnancy's that will eventually result from such a policy. Giving out birth control and other services in this manner, and at this age indirectly helps to "mainstream" sex overall at a younger age.

Then...(IF the "mother" doesn't abort the baby) the kid will probably be raised by a teenage mom, probably not have a father figure in his or her life, and more than likely will live a life close to or in poverty. More than likely the mother will be immature and not ready to properly care for the child. More than likely, the child will have emotional, behavioral, and social issues. To top it off...these kids, more than likely (in some way shape or form) will affect the lives of my kids adversely, and kids of other parents who want to raise their kids the right way.

Thats whats f!@#in wrong with it.

Abstinence only education has been shown, study after study, to be a heap of fail when compared with education that includes abstinence and safe sex issues. The school is doing nothing more than fulfilling it's moral obligation to the students.

The number of teenage pregnancy's that will eventually result from such a policy. Giving out birth control and other services in this manner, and at this age indirectly helps to "mainstream" sex overall at a younger age.

Then...(IF the "mother" doesn't abort the baby) the kid will probably be raised by a teenage mom, probably not have a father figure in his or her life, and more than likely will live a life close to or in poverty. More than likely the mother will be immature and not ready to properly care for the child. More than likely, the child will have emotional, behavioral, and social issues. To top it off...these kids, more than likely (in some way shape or form) will affect the lives of my kids adversely, and kids of other parents who want to raise their kids the right way.

Thats whats f!@#in wrong with it.

in all honesty, i am still on the fence about the issue. but you state that by handing out birth control indirectly helps to mainstream sex. don't you think that sex has already been "mainstreamed", thus the reaction of handing out birth control by the school board.

children (and everyone else) are bombarded with sex in everyday media, but never bombarded with birth control in the media. i am not saying there are no safe sex ads, or birth control ads, but some kid watching some reality show on tv where sexual situations are more than just undertones will probably not be paying attention when a safe sex ad comes on. and if so, how is a 30 second spot going to compete with nearly a half hour spot.

Reading the article I see the subject the school is addressing strongly right now isn't even the subject of "safe sex". It's purely teen pregnancy. They want to offer birth control pills or birth control patches, neither will prevent STDs. They have been offering condoms since 2000 for the safe sex platform.

If a school is going to push for contraception I think they need to put as much of a priority on preventing STDs as preventing pregnancy. I guess their condom campaign hasn't worked if their teen pregnancy rate is so high. I'd hate to know their Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, herpes, HIV, and PID rates.

It's kind of scary. I'm glad I don't have middle school aged kids because I think I'd be freaking out if my 11 year old was having sex.

Abstinence only education has been shown, study after study, to be a heap of fail when compared with education that includes abstinence and safe sex issues. The school is doing nothing more than fulfilling it's moral obligation to the students.


When did we pass the moral obligation to them? It's OUR (parents) moral obligation to do what is right for our kids.

Edit: I have two girls (8 years and 12 years old). This kind of crap scares me.

There's this thing called parents. EDIT> Actually there USED TO BE this thing called parents. Aren't many of us left.



Did you know that in California they passed a bill to call us: Parent 1 and Parent 2 in school. So not to offend anyone. What in God's good name is going on here people?

Parent 1 signing off...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_re_us/middle_school_contraceptives

Holy crap! :o


Its been on the news here for a few days. I think the next step is Kindergarten. :(

As I posted down in p&r is that too many parents aren't teaching their kids to be smart about sex. So believe it or not there's a shocking number of young kids screwing around. If they're going to do it, I think it's in society's interest to make sure they don't get pregnant.

Yeah, i think the point is getting missed. We are talking MIDDLE SCHOOL here people. That is 6th grade where I live. We all know what can happen in High School and the sex ed in high school is debatable. But how can anyone debate middle school aged kids having SEX?


First of all most of them aren't even CAPABLE of reproducing at this age, at least the boys aren't. Next, where do they have sex? They shouldn't have the oppurtunity at that age to even do it. Again, it's a parents responsibility to supervise their kids and make sure they are safe at this age.

There's this thing called parents. EDIT> Actually there USED TO BE this thing called parents. Aren't many of us left.


Amen to that. I raised three kids. NO drugs, NO sex and good moral kids.

Not like when I was a kid, sex, drugs and the law. Oops now you know. I straighten myself out before hitting adulthood.

in all honesty, i am still on the fence about the issue. but you state that by handing out birth control indirectly helps to mainstream sex. don't you think that sex has already been "mainstreamed", thus the reaction of handing out birth control by the school board.

children (and everyone else) are bombarded with sex in everyday media, but never bombarded with birth control in the media. i am not saying there are no safe sex ads, or birth control ads, but some kid watching some reality show on tv where sexual situations are more than just undertones will probably not be paying attention when a safe sex ad comes on. and if so, how is a 30 second spot going to compete with nearly a half hour spot.

My premise is that the school board is enabling the culture driven notion of sex w/o responsibility.

Sex w/o responsibility results in bad things for adults...how is it any better for kids that aren't old enough to have a drivers license?

And as for "media bombardment"...idiot parents shouldn't be allowing little Johnny or little Jane to watch that kind of content on tv anyway; they're kids...they're not adults. And kids shouldn't be learning about sex or abstinence on tv anyway...as others with kids have stated...thats the parents job.

Kids are gunna screw. Might as well not get pregnant while they're at it.

What can you do.

Neither do I, but you know what? It's happening despite all the abstinence training and preaching.

"

It's not the school's job (nor the government's job, generally) to deal with the problem, just because they happen to have custody of the children for a portion of each school day. The kids are their parents' children, not the government's custodians. Whether or not the parents are doing an adequate job does not entitle the government to step in. The only thing the school needs to be concerned with in regard to the sexual proclivity of their students is to ensure they are not having sex while at school.

What about the homeshcoolers? What are they going to do?

And on a serious note, 11 is too young to have sex. Seems like they are enabling the kids just a bit.
Our culture is enabling them. With every Paris Hilton, Tommy Lee, Calvin Klein display that has our country overly fascinated by sex. Facing this reality with tools to avoid the obvious outcome is not enabling. It is facing reality.

You want to keep your kids from having sex, don't leave it up to someone else to educate them. I see it more of a breakdown at the family level than anything else.

I am working on removable genetalia. Take it off when they are born. At their 18th birthday, or the day they move out, they can apply to get it back. Not sure if this should be a Federal program or a state run program.

tase them, bro

It's not the school's job (nor the government's job, generally) to deal with the problem, just because they happen to have custody of the children for a portion of each school day. The kids are their parents' children, not the government's custodians. Whether or not the parents are doing an adequate job does not entitle the government to step in. The only thing the school needs to be concerned with in regard to the sexual proclivity of their students is to ensure they are not having sex while at school.

Fine. Then take all that abstinence education money back that the Bush adminstration doles out and put it toward paying down the deficit or give it to Blackwater where it will do some mercenary good.

Not saying that it's anyone's job, but if you're going to teach, teach about all the options to keep safe. If not, then don't fund any kind of public education regarding the subject.


ETA.... in before the move to P&R. :)

well if there is one infinite truth that everyone can count on, it's that kids always listen to their parents. always.

Yeah, i think the point is getting missed. We are talking MIDDLE SCHOOL here people. That is 6th grade where I live. We all know what can happen in High School and the sex ed in high school is debatable. But how can anyone debate middle school aged kids having SEX?


First of all most of them aren't even CAPABLE of reproducing at this age, at least the boys aren't. Next, where do they have sex? They shouldn't have the oppurtunity at that age to even do it. Again, it's a parents responsibility to supervise their kids and make sure they are safe at this age.

No rational person in this culture would argue that junior high school kids having sex is a good idea. But that isn't the point. The fact is that some junior high school kids do have sex. So the real question is what, if anything, to do about it.

And I absolutely agree that this is primarily up to the parents to educate their kids and to instill enough sense, or fear of God, or whatever to keep the little darlings from putting Tab A into Slot B until they are better able to deal with the consequences. But again, the fact of the matter is that not every parent does that, and there is precious little that can be done to force them to. And so, again, the real question is what, if anything, should society do to make up for the fact that some parents don't deal with sexual issues with their kids (and for a whole host of reasons, including religious beliefs, which automatically puts the debate into a whole 'nother layer of complexity).

Reasonable minds can and do differ as to how to answer these questions. But to simply say "teens and pre-teens having sex is a bad idea" solves nothing. It is a statement of a perceived problem - a statement with which I happen to agree - but it doesn't even begin to be any kind of solution or mitigation ofthe problem.

It seems to me that the schools in question here are trying to address what is a sad fact of life: Some pre-teens are having unprotected sex resulting in pregnancies. For whatever combination of reasons, it is happening. Not to very many kids (I know when I was in J-Hi, maybe 2% of the kids were even candidates, physically and socially - for the rest of us, regular consensual sex simply was not in the cards in 8th grade), but to some, and the potential costs to them and to the body politic are disporportionally large. And when those of us who have managed to sheppard our kids through school with no teen pregnancies, no STD's, no drug addictions, no arrests, etc., stop patting ourselves on the back for the great job we have done, there will still be the kids for whom that isn't true and there will still be the societal costs they generate, costs we will still have to bear, like it or not.

Some folks in Maine are trying to change that. Maybe what they are doing will have an impact, maybe it won't (my gut says it will, but that and a buck-fifty will get a bad cup of coffee). It seems to me that it makes more sense to watch and see if this works, and to what degree, and what the unintended consequences are (I promise there will be some - there always are) and learn from it. If what the school distric is doing works, great. If not, try something else. If the program needs tweeks, then tweek it.

It may be that there is just some irreducable number of J-Hi girls who are going to get knocked up no matter what we do - but isn't it worth trying to see if we can at least make that number as low as possible? One thing for absolutely certain - if we just sit back and do nothing more than say "teen and pre-teen sex is wrong," then some teens and pre-teens are going to get pregnant, get AIDS, get Hep-C, and/or get some other STD, and cost us all a bunch in social welfare expenses and wasted potential.

Students need parental permission to access the school's health center.

That's some mighty fine parenting I presume.

If I’m not mistaken this also includes birth control pills. Here is where I have the biggest problem. So now the school is writing prescriptions to children without parent consent? Birth control is a regulated prescription medication. And some can cause harm to certain woman (girls). Is there any research on long term health effects of giving birth control to an 11 year old? Is there secret follow up visits by a doctor? Are we really sure we’re actually doing more good than harm? This is just wrong. What’s next the school giving ADHD drugs to children then deem a behavioral problem. Sorry this crosses way over the line as far as government intervention. Talk about civil liberties being violated.

Furthermore, if the girl is on the “pill” then why use a condom. Now were talking wide spread outbreak of all sorts of diseases.

Bill

Kids have to have written permission from parents to take an aspirin at school.
But the school gives them condoms and birth control without the parents consent. To 11 year olds. Nice.

I am working on removable genetalia. Take it off when they are born. At their 18th birthday, or the day they move out, they can apply to get it back. Not sure if this should be a Federal program or a state run program.

"detachable penis" - by king missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4

My hunch is this will be struck down by a court somewhere. I'm sure there will be some parents suing.

Bill

Wouldn't you prefer that if they are going to be having sex they protect themselves so things like this don't happen?

"The police said a 13-year-old girl and her 15-year-old boyfriend, who is the baby's father, had told them the girl had given birth to the baby in her bedroom sometime Friday. But the girl said she panicked when she could not quiet the baby's cries and she threw him out a window and into an alleyway behind her apartment. The child lay in the cold alley for 14 hours, until the boyfriend arrived on Friday night and learned what had happened, the police said.
The police said the teenagers told them that the boyfriend wrapped the baby in some towels, placed him in a "Happy Birthday" gift bag and left him on the stoop of the Second Prince of Peace Baptist Church at 464 East 183rd Street, a few blocks from the girl's home."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/nyregion/18baby.html?_r=1&oref=login&oref=slogin

Wouldn't you prefer that if they are going to be having sex they protect themselves so things like this don't happen?

"The police said a 13-year-old girl and her 15-year-old boyfriend, who is the baby's father, had told them the girl had given birth to the baby in her bedroom sometime Friday. But the girl said she panicked when she could not quiet the baby's cries and she threw him out a window and into an alleyway behind her apartment. The child lay in the cold alley for 14 hours, until the boyfriend arrived on Friday night and learned what had happened, the police said.
The police said the teenagers told them that the boyfriend wrapped the baby in some towels, placed him in a "Happy Birthday" gift bag and left him on the stoop of the Second Prince of Peace Baptist Church at 464 East 183rd Street, a few blocks from the girl's home."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/nyregion/18baby.html?_r=1&oref=login&oref=slogin


So the 13 year old girl carried the baby to term and the parents are where? The school (nanny) was where?

Something tells me these are not the kind of kids you're going to find in any school.

Bill

I am working on removable genetalia. Take it off when they are born. At their 18th birthday, or the day they move out, they can apply to get it back. Not sure if this should be a Federal program or a state run program.

I think it would be wise to keep the government out of this one. Next thing you know they find out mine is bigger than yours. Then they are taking some of mine to add to yours. See the problem?

My premise is that the school board is enabling the culture driven notion of sex w/o responsibility.

Sex w/o responsibility results in bad things for adults...how is it any better for kids that aren't old enough to have a drivers license?

And as for "media bombardment"...idiot parents shouldn't be allowing little Johnny or little Jane to watch that kind of content on tv anyway; they're kids...they're not adults. And kids shouldn't be learning about sex or abstinence on tv anyway...as others with kids have stated...thats the parents job.



How do you figure? Seems to me that the school is taking steps to educate the kids on how to take responsibility. Duh. Its the idiot abstinence programs that teach kids not to take responsibility by ignoring when they are getting close.

What's wrong with middle schoolers having sex with each other? Early teen sex has been common in other cultures, and one might easily argue that it is biologically appropriate. Are you just a bunch of religious nuts who are paralized by the prejudices given to you by your parents, or do you have some scientific basis for contending that early teens should not have fun?

What's wrong with middle schoolers having sex with each other? Early teen sex has been common in other cultures, and one might easily argue that it is biologically appropriate. Are you just a bunch of religious nuts who are paralized by the prejudices given to you by your parents, or do you have some scientific basis for contending that early teens should not have fun?

Not sure if this is for real, but what the hey... Biologically appropriate and socially appropriate are two different things. We live in a society with morals and standards. You have to somewhat live by them to remain free (not imprisoned) in this society.

And again i might remind you that we are talking about kids as young as 11. Biologically very few males and not many more females are capable at this age.

Not sure if this is for real, but what the hey... Biologically appropriate and socially appropriate are two different things. We live in a society with morals and standards. You have to somewhat live by them to remain free (not imprisoned) in this society.

And again i might remind you that we are talking about kids as young as 11. Biologically very few males and not many more females are capable at this age.

My comment was based on the assumption that our "social" rules should be rational, not just irrational prejudices handed down from past generations (when there was no birth control and means for protecting against sexually transmitted diseases). That's why I asked whether there is a scientific basis for contending that sex among middle schoolers is bad.


And, I might remind you that many middle schoolers are 13 and 14 and very biologically ready. As for the 11-year olds, my guess is that if they are not biologically ready, they won't do it. The body sorta works that way by making things not interesting until its ready.

My comment was based on the assumption that our "social" rules should be rational, not just irrational prejudices handed down from past generations (when there was no birth control and means for protecting against sexually transmitted diseases). That's why I asked whether there is a scientific basis for contending that sex among middle schoolers is bad.


And, I might remind you that many middle schoolers are 13 and 14 and very biologically ready. As for the 11-year olds, my guess is that if they are not biologically ready, they won't do it. The body sorta works that way by making things not interesting until its ready.

I think we all get your point. We understand the "natural" world. In the natural world, animals kill, starve, breed etc. completely at random and based on their desires and physiology. Sure it works out good for them, but do you really want to join in?

I think we all get your point. We understand the "natural" world. In the natural world, animals kill, starve, breed etc. completely at random and based on their desires and physiology. Sure it works out good for them, but do you really want to join in?

Once again, what is wrong with it?


I mean, I can give lots of rational reasons why we should prohibit killing of other humans (by the way, there are not that many animals who actually kill others of their own species). And, I can give rational reasons for many of the "social" rules we have for governing how we behave as humans. I'd just like to see someone give rational reasons on the middle shooler sex thing, rather than blind prejudisms that are not rational.

In other words, I'm arguing rationality, not just "natural." That is a very human thing, not an animal thing.

If I’m not mistaken this also includes birth control pills. Here is where I have the biggest problem. So now the school is writing prescriptions to children without parent consent? Birth control is a regulated prescription medication. And some can cause harm to certain woman (girls). Is there any research on long term health effects of giving birth control to an 11 year old? Is there secret follow up visits by a doctor? Are we really sure we’re actually doing more good than harm? This is just wrong. What’s next the school giving ADHD drugs to children then deem a behavioral problem. Sorry this crosses way over the line as far as government intervention. Talk about civil liberties being violated.

Furthermore, if the girl is on the “pill” then why use a condom. Now were talking wide spread outbreak of all sorts of diseases.

Bill

Almost missed that you did point this out. Huge issue. As to the other question I am not aware of any research on the effects of the pill on females that young. Lacking that research it would seem that this medication would not be approved for females in that age range.

Don't these middle schoolers know that if you do it standing up or in a pool that you can't get pregnant?

I'd just like to see someone give rational reasons on the middle shooler sex thing, rather than blind prejudisms that are not rational.

That is easy! The mind and emotions of a child are not fully developed yet.

Even into adulthood some people minds are not yet fully developed. Proof is in Foo.

What's wrong with middle schoolers having sex with each other? Early teen sex has been common in other cultures, and one might easily argue that it is biologically appropriate. Are you just a bunch of religious nuts who are paralized by the prejudices given to you by your parents, or do you have some scientific basis for contending that early teens should not have fun?

Ok let's say go ahead and do it.
Who takes care of the children? Do we abort all of them? Do the kids quit school? Do the grandparents take care of them?
We're not merely talking about sex. We're talking about life as well.
What about the STD? Do condoms work all the time? Are they going to use them all the time?
Where does the age of consent begin? 11, 9, 4?

I think there’s a larger picture to see. More than two kids boinking uglies for fun. Everything this world feeds us and our children are: Do it now, worry about it later. Have fun. Get what you want. Take it.



Do you have children?

What's wrong with middle schoolers having sex with each other? Early teen sex has been common in other cultures, and one might easily argue that it is biologically appropriate. Are you just a bunch of religious nuts who are paralized by the prejudices given to you by your parents, or do you have some scientific basis for contending that early teens should not have fun?

Well if we’re going to talk scientific theory then lets take a look at Darwin theory. Sex is a means of ensuring the species will survive. And nature made sex feel good (or fun as you put it) so we do it a lot therefore ensuring our species will propagate.

That’s what we find some females more attractive than others, better breading potential. Given that and that middle schoolers are ripe for promoting the species, then why are we frowning on teen pregnancy why not PROMOTE it. I mean why are we giving them birth control in the first place? Better still we should sterilize all the ugly, dumb and unhealthy kids thus ensuring we have excellent offspring.

[QUOTE=jsharr;5477015]What about the homeshcoolers? What are they going to do?

Hopefully this isn't another case of the teacher hitting on the student.:eek: