ChatterBank2 mins ago
Contraception
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! :-)
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by january_bug. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I think you are right, if you don't want a baby you will do anything to avoid getting pregnant. I would never have had contemplated unprotected sex as a teenager for fear of my bits rotting away. I was on the pill when I first had sex and believe it or not I made my boyfriend hood up twice to make sure i didnt get pregnant.
I think that long term contraception has too many unwantedd side effects we should be combinig the mini pill and condoms for teenagers.
I can't see the problem: surely sexual health practioners will be promoting condoms as well as alternatives and perhaps suggesting combinations where appropriate?
We can't presume that better contraception access will lead to a rush of people using the opportunity to cast caution to the wind and head off for the local bar to pick up a casual partner.
Long term contraception applies to people in long term committed relationships as well as those who are not. So do unwanted pregnancies.