Contraception

[january_bug]

Not sure if you guys over here are up for debates, but I just wanted to ask something...

Here - it's been in the press that women should have better access to longer term contraception in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I would worry that this could lead to a further increase in STD/STIs as people (teenagers more so perhaps?) would feel condoms are less important once the risk of pregnancy is eliminated. It seems a risky policy to me.

What do you think?

PS - If this section is meant to be an informal doctors' surgery, then plesae do ignore me completely! :-)

[Chessman]

I just read the same thing, but in the age we live today, I don't think it'll make much difference, girls still of school age today, can get contraceptives as easy as buying sweets, without permission, and ignoring reponsible patents wishes, however, on a personal note, I don't believe it should be happening. of course the article doesn't mention an age group, but you can bet your life they will get it. Of course, it won't happen, but I think all forms of contraception should be banned, it might teach some people how to take responsibility for their own actions. Severe?, possibly, but I think it should be done.

[jake-the-peg]

Chessman - isn't that like banning seatbelts because that would make people drive more carefully?

[Chessman]

Jake, if thats how you read it, fair enough, but I don't see seat belts stopping unwanted pregnancies.

[littlemissx]

i think school age girls if tehy are going to be having s�x then there is nothing that will stop them so i believe that they should be able to get the contraception. at the end of teh day it will just end up in unwanted pregnancies etc that will cause more trouble

[january_bug]

jake-the-peg - I quite agree.

Chessman - I don't see why EVERYONE (whatever age) should be denied sex, just because some people can't take responsibility for their own actions. That would therefore include married couples who had had children but didn't want any more. They would be forced to abstain until the wife had the menopause. Fair enough, some people make the choice not to use contraception (e.g., Catholics), but to deny people that choice, well "Severe" doesn't even cover it, in my opinion!

littlemissx - I also agree with you, but for everyone I'll say what I was getting at...

This policy has benefits and costs, so it appears. To me, it seems vital that such a change in the way pregnancies are prevented MUST be coupled with better and better education about STDs and the risks (physical and emotional) of sex.

[Drusilla]

People have always had sex and people will always have sex because it's a natural part of life. Contraception not only allows couples to enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancies, it also prevents women developing the numerous gynaecological problems suffered by women of yore after numerous pregnancies in marriage. Banning anything seldom solves a problem: Prohibition of alcohol in the US is a fine example.

[january_bug]

Drusilla - quite! But do you think that long term contraception options will cause some women to lower their guard to the other risks associated with sex? This would have an adverse effect on men AND women if the levels of STDs went up. You may well disagree with me, plenty of people do on plenty of issues!!! :-)

[Drusilla]

I think the best contraception is the condom because it both reduces the risk of pregnancy and protects against many STD's. It also doesn't lead to physiological difficulties in women, which some oral or device based contraceptives can do. As far as I can see, the only problem with condoms is a possible allergic reaction, which is rare, or a male partner who refuses to wear one. I think family planning clinics here in the UK still hand them out free, but I might be wrong on that.

[Chessman]

jan-bug, I admit my views are a bit right wing, and I may have projected the 'everyone' bit, and I aplogise for that, I think there should be exceptions, medical or otherwise, but when you look back at the pre-pill days, girls/women were scared to get pregnant, of course, that was also when a single mother was ostracised. I don't mind getting lambasted for my views, i'm a bit of a Dinosaur, but I still hold them.

[january_bug]

I think the problem is that girls AND GUYS need to be made to fear STDs.

I am pretty liberal with my views on sex (in terms of being in a relationship or not, and number of sexual partners) but I think a lot of young girls are no longer embarassed to look "easy" and will regret their decisions later in life. I also feel that, so long as people (women AND men) are responsbile, it's nobody's business but their own who they have sex with.

Re single mothers... I don't tihnk they should ever be judged for their marital status, not least because one cannot be sure whose fault it is that they are single. I'm sure that the ratio won't be far off 50:50 when it comes to apportioning "blame" to the child's father in terms of who's fault it is that the child is onl being brought up by one parent.

It's not just women who need to be responsible about sex... men should too!

PS - Chessman, I don't mean to lambast you at all. I think you probably have very good moral values. But I suspect that the implications of some of your ideas, if turned into "policy" would be disasterous! I personally wholeheartedly support and encourage the idea of a "proper" family (Mum, Dad, their children) but I support no less families that are in different cricumstances. Gone are the days when women should feel bound to a man just because he fathered one or more of her children. THere are a lot of men out there who are abusive and violent... I would support ANY woman to be a single mum rather than put herself and her child through that.

Ok, getting off topic, but it's my thread and I'm allowed to, so there! :-p

[Dakota]

I think that long term contraception is a good idea. I know what you're saying Buggy about the further risk of STD's but there are many people, including teens on the pill so there is no difference between using that and no condoms than another form and no condoms.

I am on the pill, for no other reason really than that without it, my periods are very heavy and very painful. I don't care if people come back and say that it's just nature and I should put up with it as the option of relief is there and I have gladly accepted it. So, altough I am covered from pregnancy, I still choose my sexual partners wisely and still use a condom as a barrier from STD's until such time that both of us has been to the GUM clinic and been given the all clear.

[Chessman]

jan-bug, regarding your 'ps', believe it or not, I agree with the views you've expressed there.

[january_bug]

Chessman - I believe you!! Ah you SURE you're not a lawyer!! :-p Only, like me, you firmly say something, and then when questioned there's a hint of "ah, BUT, there's a caveat with that...." :-) PS, I'm avoiding making comments about your love life, based on your basic desire to ban sex! lol :-p

[butter1]

Hi, I would just like to say that I take the injection contraception - but this is not just because I don't want an unplanned pregnancy its because I suffer from terrible period pains (to which I don't have anymore due to the injection) - so Chessman, not all contraceptions are there just for stopping unwanted pregnancies but for other reasons also and taking that away isn't a good idea.

[Morrisonker]

I'm sorry Chessman but i think that your logic is disgusting and backwards! So we're only to have sex to have children then. Ok, if you have a religious belief which makes you think that way fine. But are you honestly telling me that you'd abstain for sex with your wife etc just because you didn't want to have children? A woman has a right to decide exactly what goes on in her body and that includes contraceptives. Did you know what since the morning after pill has become available in pharmacys it's actually being used less? Women and indeed girls are perfectly capable of using condoms, the pill etc responsibly and it's insulting to say otherwise.

The problem of underage sex and unwanted pregnancy isn't down to contraceptives, it's down to insufficent sexual health lessons and that is something I'm desperate to see improve. If boys as wells as girls were taught more about safe sex, how to protect themselves and their partners then I believe that the problem would soon lessen.

As a 19 year old girl I've only had sex ed once in my life, when I was aged 11 and

[Chessman]

jan-bug, afraid its life experience and observation.

Morrisoniker, I haven't slated anyone off, just given my views, and speaking the way you have done, says quite a lot about you, i'm only going to answer the part about the pill, which i've already touched on, yes, of course it gave women more freedom of choice, and i'm all for that, what I was saying, was, since the pill, and you can check figures if you like, there are a hellova lot more unwanted pregnancies than before, (i've already given why), i've given my views, and thats whay they are, views that are open to discussion, not a slating. Your a young lady, and at nineteen, still have lots of living to do, and your unfinished sentance also says a lot, whatever has happened in the past, I wish you well for the future.

[january_bug]

I had plenty of sex education at my school. Boys and girls together. About diseases, and a lesson on how to put on a condom.

Policy has also changed a lot in 8 years and lessons are improved, but need improving more.

Dare I say it, but parents could do a lot to encourage a better thier children to have attitude towards sex.

Re the having a go at Chessman - I believe I'd already said all that, but in a much calmer and more polite way. Still... ho hum. :-)

[Betty Boop x]

I think that the thing people still seem to fear the most about unprotected sex is pregnancy and STIs are at the back of people's minds, when in actual fact the chance of catching an STI through unprotected sex is high (and getting higher - GUM clinics are already over run with patients).

STIs are already on the increase, and although it is good that they are trying to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies, i agree that because pregnancy is what most people worry about, once they know pregnancy is unlikely because they are on the pill they won't bother with a condom because STIs are an after thought.

I watched a programme about the increase of STIs the other day and it said that something like 1 in 10 sexually active people have chlamidia (sp). That is a scary thought. What's even scarier is that many people don't know they have it because it often has no symtoms, therfore they don't get tested and then pass it on without knowing, and so it goes on.

So STIs are something people need to worry about when having unprotected sex and i think this needs to be publised more, so more people are aware of exactly how high the risks are. Condoms are the only way to stop STIs spreading, so i think if people are going to be given the pill to stop unwanted pregnancies they also need to be made aware that they still need to wear condoms unless they know for certain the person they are sleeping with doesn't have an STI and neither do they (ie they have been tested).

So yes I agree with you're statment that once pregnancy is eliminated this could very likely lead to a further increase in STIs.

x

[Yingying1987]

Well to young ppl and ppl who arent in long term relationships that they trust they really should be using a condom as they should be worried about STI aswell as getting or making someone pregnant.

I take it that this is aimed at women who get unwanted pregnancies while in a long term relationship so dont have or at least shouldnt have to worry about STI etc... and sometimes forget to take the pill. In this case then i think that long term contraception like injections, implants etc would be a good idea. However from what iv read some can be really uncomfortable and can cause side effects also some may even lead to infertility. To me the risks arent worth it and id stick to using condoms.

[Otrere]

People will have sex. Teenage girls will have sex if they want to. That is the way life is.

Without contraception they are risking both STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Surely at least eliminating one of these possibilities by offering the implant/injection is better than no contraception at all?