Birth Control for young girls
 

At what age do you think it appropriate for your/a young teenage girl to be on birth control?

Do you wait until they come to you and say they're sexually active? (may be a loooong wait!)

When they start dating?

When they first menstruate?

After they get knocked up for the first time?

I wish that it was culturally normal for all girls, after they start menstruating, to be on birth control, before they're sexually active. Not to encourage sexual activity, but as a preventive measure, and a matter of course. I don't necessarily mean the pill, because I don't think they would take a daily pill, but some of the longer-lasting alternatives available now. They would have to affirmatively go off their birth control to get pregnant.

I know that's a pie-in-the-sky, but think of how many teen pregancies, and poverty-level families that would prevent.

There are some longer term consequences of hormonal contraception during physical maturation. Even though an 11-year old may be biologically capable of bearing a child, her body hasn't finished developing.

Lost a whole bloody post. HATE that.

I am an advocate of giving the implant (3-5 years) to any girl after menstruation.
Too hard to police to expect it to become a reality, but perhaps in future something could be developed that will only become activated after menstruation.

The conservative viewpoint is once you remove the possibility of pregnancy, you will spawn a generation of kids who will fuck on the streets. Exaggeration, but I've read some terrible predictions from the '60s that just didn't happen. Instead, there was a culture shift where those with education took advantage of contraception and those who lived in parts of society where pregnancy was venerated or at least not seen as a negative carried on regardless.

Enforced contraception sounds so totalitarian.
But what advantage is there to either the individual or society in letting 14 year olds breed? It's not fair to them, it's not fair to society and it's not fair to their children. Or your children, who will grow up in that generation.

Y'all know I'm an atheist.
I put the BORN child and the mother before the mass of cells existing in a womb. But I would still prefer to see children not faced with the decision of abortion. Yeah, mostly because they don't seem to choose it anyway, old witch that I am.

That was a lot more stream of consciousness than my last considered post. But I figure I can come back and reply in a more sensible fashion if this damned machine doesn't eat my log in again.

Good point, Pie, but maybe that could be addressed. There are long-term consequences of adult women taking them, but, I dunno. How about from age 15 on? That's when I started both sex and birth control.

I have no problem with the concept opt-out contraception for younger teens, just worries about the safety and long term effects.

Very little money has gone into contra-reproductive medicine in the past few decades. There is a huge fear of lawsuits arising from birth defects since the parent of every baby with a health problem looks for someone to blame & sue, and juries are notoriously generous to such claimants.

In a perfect world, we'd all be in absolute conscious control of our gametes.

Depends on the kid. It's a case-by-case thing.

I was 16 when I started taking the pill, and that's just because my boyfriend had an older sister-in-law who took me under her wing and made me a doctor appointment. And made my boyfriend pay for it. Thank you, Bonnie. If it weren't for her, my life would've probably been very different. In a bad way.

Now, my daughter is not the same way at all - I lacked confidence, and she has it in abundance. I don't kid myself that she's gonna make it to marriage without having sex first, but we might make it through high school. I really think that's best.

I am against any type of implant contraception. I belong to a board for PCOS and you would not believe the number of people whose symptoms exploded right after they got off Depo or whatever they have.

I also agree with Pie and would worry about the long term effects on them - even just the pill.

I get it. but don't discount the long term effects of unplanned teen pregnancies, either, both to the individual, and to society

'Just the pill' is often the worst as far as systemic interactions of hormones goes. An orally available drug goes everywhere in the body, as well as your ovaries. Ditto for Depo, Norplant or the patch. NuvaRing does present a lower level of systemic hormone, however.

Condoms, cervical cap, sponge -- these (sort of) work. But they require maturity, access and planning on the part of the user. Tough, when you and your partners are kids.

An IUD has far fewer side effects, far fewer complications (no really; go look at the current statistics!) and requires no actions on the part of the user -- but can be painful for a nullipara. A non-hormonal IUD can also create very heavy periods.

And none of these (except condoms) address STDs in any way.

Depo is not an implant, it's an injection. I was on Depo for years, no side effects. I am aware it's not evidence though. See below for what I am on.
Are we using diffrent words for different drugs? No-one has yet mentioned Implanon, which I am on.
Nope. But having no birth control doesn't address them either.
I am not suggesting anything as an alternative for education and social work to prevent/ control underage sex. I'm just saying at present it happens. And while it happens without condoms, let's try and make sure it happens without babies too. Of course as I said, it would take a totalitarian regime to implement it. I'm just talking in an ideal world.

I learned a new word today!!

For the record, I have been very, very happy with my recent switch from the pill to a hormonal IUD (Mirena, if anyone's curious.) They warned me that because I never actually delivered a baby vaginally, and it's all about the stretchiness of the cervix, inserting mine might be more painful than would be expected for a chick with two kids. She said it would help to insert it during my cycle, and it worked like a charm. Insertion hurt less than a standard pap smear, and the one-day's-worth of cramping was no worse than normal monthly cramps.

Now I have no more PMS symptoms, and I save my $40/month prescription copay too. Hooray!

It's not a solution for teenagers, but vasectomy is awesome for those at my age who are married and done having kids. My wife was on the pill for years and I'm glad she doesn't have to take 'em any more.

I'm on Mirena too, Clod. It hurt like a mofo getting it, but I've no complaints now. And no periods. :thumb:

Oh my...

So you're telling me it stopped your period? Or your cramps? I'd do it right now, just for those bennies.

I worried about an IUD with a history of endometriosis, that it would worsen cramping and cause bleeding between periods.

I wonder, an over 40 smoker can't take BC pills, I wonder if the hormone in the IUD is risky for the same?

I believe Implanon is much like Norplant: a sub-dermal rod-shaped hormone delivery system.

Shaw, I was told that the hormones in the IUD are local only, they don't go into your bloodstream. But I've also heard you're not supposed to get one with a history of endometriosis, so I don't know.

And yes, my cramps are gone--but more importantly the rampant sobbing for no reason is gone--and I haven't had a real period since getting it, but I have had pretty regular spotting. They say that should taper off in awhile.

Thanks for the info! I've been looking into getting one. The spotting thing worried me too. And the pain. I don't want pain in my hoo-hoo. Seems like a fair trade-off from what you're saying, though.

Maybe the solution is birth control for teenage boys. As in, copious amounts of free and accessible condoms, and education and enforcement to go with it.

No glove no love.

Why have there not been advances made in medicine FOR boy birth control, now that you brought it up? It might mess with their spermies, probably, and spermies are worth EVERYTHING to manhood: don't wanna mess with the ability to get someone pregnant until it is their choice, their decision.

Hmmm...choice.

[/yetanothersnidecommentabouttheworldofmenz]

It stopped my periods completely. I've had two episodes of ultra-light spotting since I got it in Feb. 2007. That's it. No cramps to speak of.

Endometriosis: it appears that Mirena is prescribed for exactly that condition, Shaw.
I believe the systemic risks for smokers are slightly reduced since Mirena is levonorgestrel-only (a synthetic progesterone), but IANAMD. It's still listed as a contra-indication on some web sites; check with your ob/gyn.

If I were you, I'd definitely follow up on this. Good luck!

Thanks so much! I really appreciate your input, ladies, and pie's research! :)

To jump to the defense of the boy-population, messing with sperm is far more dangerous in case of failure. You wouldn't want a misshapen sperm to fertilize an ova -- birth defects galore. On the female side, the eggs are already produced so there isn't an issue with fabrication of gametes, just delivery of same to the fallopian tubes.

Oh, OK. (shuffles feet and looks at floor)

I'll let the guys slide on this one. I didn't know any of that. :blush: Sorry.

:) it's all good. But I've seen something about installing on/off valves in the vas deferens -- that might do the trick! Any of you men want to sign up for my clinical trial? <evil cackle>

Huh. There is stuff in the pipeline (if you'll excuse the pun). Problem's still in the funding and testing.

FTR - free condoms are readily available in the UK. As are all forms of (female) contraception.
We have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe.

Education, education, education.
And a rubbishing of the idea that pregnancy is God's will.
But that's my prejudice coming out.

yet...
Hmm - is there some correlation there?

No.

Doubt it. Just because contraception is freely available doesn't mean youngsters take up that offer. As Sundae said: education, education, education.

I found it very frustrating when I was a committee member on the Children and Young People's scrutiny panel in council, that whilst the government had put money into creating a curriculum for sex health education, it was optional for the school's as to whether they took it up and optional for the parents whether their children attended. Consequently none of the church schools opted to take that option. One of the areas (my ward) of our borough had one of the worst teenage conception rates in the country. Two of the main secondary(high) schools in that area were church schools, one CofE and one Catholic. They pointblank refused to take on board the sex education curriculum for their kids.

Another problem in our schools is that even where they do have sex education, it's rarely a specialist teacher. usually it's a teacher of a different subject (often the gym teacher) who gets drafted in (or volunteers) to do a few sessions. So, even where schools have considered it important enough to teach, it doesn't carry the same expertise as any other subject. In reality it requires expertise and a greater level of sensitivity than most other subjects in order to be in any way effective.

Even with all those factors taken care of, and a school with a trained teacher delivering a well-designed curriculum: that doesn't solve the many different cultural problems which may be at play. Unsurprisingly, whilst teenaged conception is not exclusively a problem for the poor, there are much higher levels in areas of high deprivation. Then of course you get into the vicious cycle: the children of teenagers are far more likely to grow up and become teenaged parents themselves, than the children of older parents.

It's a very complex issue. Education is one element. Economics, and culture also play a role. As indeed do parenting skills, but there we're back into the cycle again.

It's entirely erroneous to point to the fact we have free contraception and suggest that as a reason for teenagers getting pregnant. We have free contraception everywhere in the country: but high teenaged conception rates occur in hotspots, not across the whole country, and not across whole towns.

Non-hormonal IUD for 23 years (excepting the times when pregnancy an ok outcome or pregnant). It has to be the way, folks. Was very surprised to move here and find out how uncommon/unpopular it is

I think people here are still scared of IUDs because of the Dalkon Shield and because of increased bleeding.

Well then, that's something to work on. that's 35 years ago ffs.

Oh and to answer your question. When they tell you they need it which will be when they're thinking about becoming sexualy active because you've created safe and open environment in which they feel they can discuss these things with you without fear of punishment, disapproval or whatever.....

the perfect world solution

Weeeell....doesn't always work like that. I was raised very much without a 'punishment model'. Sex wasn't a matter for disapproval either. The closest I came to that was Dad asking me if I intended to 'go out wearing that?' when i had on something outrageous: my answer 'yes' was fine and no more was said.

I never talked about sex with mum. She'd try from time to time, but I found it excruciatingly embarrassing. There is no way I'd have told my mum I was about to be sexually active. I kept it entirely secret. It was only when my first 'relationship' crashed and burned that she realised I was sleeping with the lad.

Teens can develop a bunch of embarrassment and secrecy no matter how understanding and open the parenting is.

right. looks like I needed a TIC smiley :rolleyes: ....of course it doesn't always work like that, but wouldn't it be nice if it did?

Would just like to reiterate that I was not making a connection between free contraception and high teen pregnancy.

Other countries in Europe (which we are measured against) also have free contraception. The difference is in attitude both to education, about and from families and to general levels of poverty.

I went to good schools. In my middle school I learned human reproductive biology from the age of 11. We had focus chat groups with our teacher and the local priest (Catholic school). These were about what is now called abstention, but did include info about STDs and contraception.

From 12 onwards I was at Grammar school (school you have to pass a test to get into). We had sex pushed down our throats til we were sick of it. Sorry, I mean sex education til it was boring. Biology, Social Studies, various assemblies, religious studies, blah, blah, blah. Any girl who had sex unprotected was a silly cow who got what she deserved.

I've said before - I did.
Didn't get pregnant. But shows that even an aware and intelligent girl thinks she's immune. The curse of the teenager. There are schoolgirls out there that want to get pregnant. If we can only help prevent those that don't, and do so by accident, at least it will help.

I've no idea how to do it, given I had an excellent education and chanced becoming a statistic myself. Which is why I advocate enforced contraception. I'd even advocate enforced termination for girls under 16, but I know that would be even harder to enforce than contraception and might even lead to me being lynching even making the suggestion.

I know you weren't. But Classic was inferring there may be a connection.

Admittedly I don't have the perspective that the women posting in this thread have. I'm a 42 year old dude with a 21 year old and 14 year old boys. This is what I tell the young men. Sex makes kids, when you are ready to take on the responsibility of providing everything for a little human being, then you can have sex. The single best tested way to not have children, is to not have sex. Now, there is contraception, nothing is 100%. Because I can't lock you under the stairs for the rest of your life, nor do I want to, you get to decide. So far, so good. I don't have any grandkids yet.

Now, when did it become a bad thing for people to have kids at any age?

It's a bad thing to have kids and not take responsibility for your progeny, at any age. And, teens are not the most responsible demographic, I think Socrates complained about the youth in his day. I for one, will not approach this subject from a position that having children is a life ending affair. Having children is a life fulfilling affair. This is what I want my boys to know. Having them, being their father, has helped my life to be full and wonderful in more ways then I can count. Yes, challenging as well. It's a package deal.

So to bring this all together, I've taken longer then I expected with this one, we shouldn't teach our children that sex is a casual thing to be taken lightly. Yet, we do in so many ways teach them this. I do believe that this is tied up in your question, should we give young girls birth control.

How about this. Girls can begin menstruation between 8 and 16 years of age, most likely though between 11 and 16. Should girls and boys between 11 and 16 years be having sex? I think the answer on many levels is: No....but I should be giving them birth control and contraception? Then the answer is yes.

Of course having a child is not a 'life-ending affair'! Quite the opposite: contraception is biologically difficult because we need to insure future fertility is unaffected.

Actually, Joe raises an interesting point. We've been talking about teenage pregnancy (or more specifically teenage conception) as a problem. As a statistical phenomenon it certainly is problematic. At an individual level, it may or may not be problematic. There are many older parents who simply aren;t cut out to raise children. By the same token there are also teenagers who do a damn fine job of raising healthy happy and loved offspring. For some teens getting pregnant/getting a girl pregnant is a catastrophic event. For others it is a life affirming and enriching experience.

Which is one reason i don't believe in mandating contraception in the way Sundae suggests. I know of girls who wanted to get pregnant by the time they were 15. Sure, that may have been because they were missing unconditional love in their lives (or felt they were) and wanted someone truly theirs; but at least one of them (an old schoolfriend) did get pregnant and frankly blossomed. It gave her life meaning and she hit her schoolwork with a vigour she'd never had before, taking a brief break from her GCSEs to have the baby and, with the help of her mum, attending sixth form college three days a week to get her a-levels. She was a brilliant mum. She went on to have a further two children. By the time they were at an age to need less parenting, she was still young enough to have a career change and go into nursing. Having been a kid with very little confidence, she 'found herself' as a mother.

You know what I wish they'd do? Create PSAs encouraging adoption. Basic clips showing the kind of mature, financially stable, married couples who are on waiting lists for years to be selected by a birth mother to adopt a newborn baby. There's this cultural assumption that it's either abortion or raise the baby yourself, because "giving up" the baby is somehow a terrible thing, even if the birth mother knows she doesn't really want the baby.

Just asking a question - there seems to be potential for a correlation. Perhaps we should spend millions on a study.

Well. My cousin's lass got pregnant when they were both 16. She was counselled to give it up for adoption and that's what she did. She didn't really want to raise a baby. They both felt too young and unequipped. Both had plans for their futures (she wanted to go to art college, he wanted to be a professional tennis player). The emotional impact didn't really hit her fully until a couple of years later (beyond the obvious pain of the initial moment of giving him up, which was fucking horrendous) It still hits her on a fairly regular basis. They now have three children (yes they stayed together apart from a brief hiatus in their early 20s). She still occasionally cries for her lost son. She has had to seek counselling in later life to deal with the torrent of emotion and guilt she still feels.

No, the options aren't just raise it or abort it. But the emotional impact of adoption can be massive and damaging. She now believes she was badly advised and wishes she'd kept the baby and raised him herself.

My bad. The manner in whch the question was raised seemed to suggest that you believed there may be a correlation. I do not believe there is any correlation whatsoever. We should definately spend millions.

I've known several woman who had an equivalent reaction years after an abortion. (I also, incidentally, know a small number of women who kept their babies who later came to regret that decision for both themselves and their children just as much.) There's never a totally safe choice with difficult decisions like an unplanned pregnancy. But I suspect a component of her counseling was reminding herself that he ostensibly went to a loving home who has cared well for him. The perception that adoption is really just leaving them to the wolves is part of the problem.

I agree, to a point. But I also think that whilst there may be lots of potential parents on waiting lists for babies, there is no shortage of children to adopt. There is a serious problem with people wanting to adopt newborns only. Consequently there are many three and four year olds in the system who won't experience a true parental relationship. There is a cultural value placed on adopting a newborn baby as opposed to a child. That may well be exacerbated if there is more overt encouragement of the kind you recommend.

Whilst there is emotional impact from abortion, and no decision can truly be safe for every case: going through the entire pregnancy and then actually giving birth then giving the child up can be the most terrible wrench. An early abortion with good counselling before and after is often less traumatic. The later the abortion, generally, the more traumatic, and frankly probably more so than adoption.

On a slightly different point: I find the idea of young, often financially insecure women effectively acting as incubators for mature, often financially stable couples politically and morally troubling. Not saying it shouldnt happen. Am slightly troubled at the idea of it being 'encouraged'.

I guess there IS a correlation. High teen pregnancy is correlated with free contraception because .... high teen pregnancy rates CAUSE the government to give out free contraception to try to get the teen pregnancy rates down.

Ok. Ya got me.

correlation but not causality

Naw, the free contraceptives were caused by the high teen pregnancy rate. It went in the opposite direction from what classic intimated.

Or, as Cloud suggests, no causal conenction at all. Mere coincidence.

Other possibilities are causal fork models (both are caused by some third factor) or feedback loops (where the two factors cause each other).

I teach this shit for money, you know.

We could just duct-tape their knees together?

I agree with all about the main problem being getting the message across that they are not invincible and they most likely are not ready to become parents. Once that hurdle is overcome, then we can deal about the the "hows and whens". otherwise, are we really planning to hold them all down and insert IUDs or hormone rods?

Change expectations and change the law. Make it so anyone (not just girls) can get free contraception. Kids should know that when they start having sex that it's their job to cover the contraception base, whether that's asking parents to provide contraceptives or getting them from elsewhere.

I will be teaching my children how to be safe, think for themselves, make their own choices, and accept the consequences of their actions. I won't be teaching my children abstinence or any other absolutist approach to life.

Here's an idea that shares responsibility among males.

Every time a male causes an unplanned pregnancy, he has a testicle surgically removed.

I doubt there'd be many repeat offenders.

@ PW Right. That's pretty much what we all say until we get there. Just so's you know. Some of us follow through, many don't.

My parents managed it. I think I can too... unless I have daughters. Luckily bearing female offspring is a rare occurrence in my family.

It's not just a cultural value. I know three families that adopted older kids (one each at ages 2, 3, and 4,) and all three of the kids had major emotional problems to work out with their new families, either immediately or down the road. I'm not sure if the terminology is the same over there, but here they call it "Reactive Attachment Disorder." A newborn has a chance to truly bond with the new mother, while an older child has had an entirely different set of imprinting experiences, and usually negative. I'm certainly not saying those children don't deserve to be adopted, just that it's a real concern for an adoptive family to consider, whether they are up for taking on what will almost certainly end up being a special needs child in an emotional/psychological sense.

But she did put a big financial, emotional, and physical, burden on her parents, which is hardly fair.