digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Birth Control for Middle Schoolers? I Think We're Missing the Point

whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.co… — Controversy rages over the Maine middle school that wants to give middle schoolers birth control, but the debate is focused on adolescent sex and the pros and cons of birth control--and that misses the point entirely.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • macweirdo42, on 10/23/2007, -2/+32It's true, this is an issue of parenting... But I think it's more complex than that. I think it raises all sorts of ethical questions such as "When do we decide that someone is an irresponsible parent and no longer gets a say in how their child is raised?" I know for most people, the answer is never, but it makes you think. I mean, has the parent of an 11-year-old who's having sex and potentially getting pregnant failed in their duties as a parent? How do we balance the welfare of the child vs. parental rights? How do we even decide what's best for the child?

    I dunno... It's a lot to think about, but I think everyone should before they get involved in this debate. I personally lean on the side of "sometimes parents are stupid and therefore don't get a say," but I'm biased because I've had a good number of friends who've been screwed up by their parents.

    Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, maybe the answer is somewhere in between. Whichever way, what I want is a philosophical justification for what approach should be taken. I haven't a clue... All I've got is personal observations, opinions, and biases which don't count for jack ***** in the real world (no matter how much people might say otherwise).
    • bamapachyderm, on 10/23/2007, -3/+10When you have kids, trust me, you will not want the state telling you how to parent your children (abuse/neglect being the exception, in which case, "we" should decide).
      But irresponsibility--by whose standards? Do you consider parents who don't discuss sex at all with their kids irresponsible? (Truth: it happens.) And who is the state to decide how and what you teach your kids? Yes, if an 11 year-old is pregnant, there's obviously a problem, but I do NOT want the state to babysit me, as a parent, to make sure I don't "allow" my 11 year-old to get pregnant. Sometimes that happens to kids with great parents, anyway.
      Obviously, eleven and twelve isn't at all the same as high school, but when I was in high school (gawd, in the 80's) there were a ***** of girls getting pregnant because people thought being on BCP was "slutty." (Stupid!) They didn't come from bad homes with crappy parents, either. Kids do escape parental supervision all the time, and with both parents working, as is the norm nowadays, it's easy for them to get into things they shouldn't. So what next--should the state mandate at least one parent be a full-time parent so their kids are always supervised? How is that interfering more with parental responsibility than this case?
      • Aneurhythmia, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2What standard are you using to qualify neglect?
      • shupy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1This is not about the state telling you what to do or how to parent your child. This is about a local school board making a decision to give help to those young people who need it and ask for it. You can parent your child how you want, but when the child in in trouble and needs help, they are entitled to get it.
    • BrandonPerry, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4Heh, I read your comment as "I mean, as the parent of an 11 year old who having sex and potentially getting pregnant..."
      • LeeSoong, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1how about mandatory sterilization of all public school students?

        then the school can rest easy knowing everything will be a.o.k.

        /sarcasm - as if you couldn't tell...
    • Nougat, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It's easy to judge situations which are very far away from the line between neglect and not neglect. As you get closer to that line, the line gets blurrier.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1wait for the first lawsuit after a student has an adverse reaction.

        local schools can't give a kid aspirin -without a prescription.

        the entire Maine middle school should be closed for coming up with such a ridiculous idea.

        burocrats make bad doctors...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Look, IF the kid is having sex -- then the parent isn't influencing the kid. It isn't a judgement call on the parent -- it's about being practical. Good parents can have kids get influenced and bad parents can have self-aware kids -- part of that is personality and part of it is how you raise them. My first kid likes to please others, and my second kid cannot get pushed around by anyone -- I had no control over that.
      If I had a daughter, and she was having sex -- I'd want her to get on the pill. I'd rather have a long talk with her than a long pregnancy. Sex is not something that destroys most people. Everyone who is alive today seems to have had it involved in their past -- I guarantee it.
    • pheil, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Parenting is one of the most important jobs a person will hold in their lifetime and it is the one people are least trained to do. What we need are easily accessible classes that you get 4 times over the course of your child's life. They should all cover dicipline, finding proper day-care, how to help with homework without doing it for them, and ways to cope with issues like bullying, sex, drugs, etc...

      Parenting 101: Caring for children age 0-6.
      Parenting 201: Caring for children age 6-12.
      Parenting 301: ...Age 12-18.
      Parenting 401: How to butt out, your kid is grown up.

      Done right (i.e. using facts gained from the extensive research done by child and school psychologists), I think something like this could really help our society.
    • themastersb, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4I like the idea of birth control
      Pros: I don't have to worry about middle school girls getting pregnant with my bastard child
      Cons: ???
      • Dush, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Let me guess you're packing up and moving to Maine now.
      • Takalth, on 10/24/2007, -3/+2Cons: We get to screw up her hormones using drugs with enormous side effects while she's still developing.

        Show me 1 effective birth control pill that doesn't have serious side effects and you may have a point.
    • Seannaz453, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Kids listen to the media, but it's hard to get a kid to listen to their parents.
    • shupy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1School boards are elected. Those people elected the school board, they can vote them out. This isn't about babysitting the parent, it's about stepping up with an option for the kid whose parents aren't doing the job. Kids becoming sexually active at that age are are not at all the norm, it is frequently the result of an abuse or neglect situation. Healthy families don't need this option, the school board admitted that it was to address the very small percentage that were the exception. Condoms have been available to boys for some time, we're willing to protect boys, but we don't equip the girls to protect themselves. If you maintain a healthy relationship with your child, it isn't a problem for you, but maybe it should be an option for the young girl who lacks good parental guidance.
  • Itazura, on 10/24/2007, -9/+43"There's been a lot of buzz over the past few days about a middle school in Maine that plans to make birth control available to 11-14 year old students without parental consent or notification."

    Inaccurate. It actually requires their notification except where rare exceptions to the rule have to be made. You also fail to state that this school already has a clinic in it that serves the entire neighborhood and is also the main source of most medical services already for these children. You also forgot to state that this is in fact of the best middle schools in the entire nation and most middle school administrators visit this campus to see how to improve their own. It is alright to have an opinion, but do not leave out or completely change facts to try and create an outrage.
    • bamapachyderm, on 10/23/2007, -5/+20No, it does NOT require notification for birth control. It does for use of the clinic.
      Don't you find it a little crazy that a parent has to give permission to schools for them to dispense over-the-counter Tylenol, but not birth control? Why take real parental responsibility away from parents? Do you actually think NO parent can properly (by whose standards?) advise their children? (And let's not forget, 11 and 12 year olds ARE children, regardless of their puberty status.)
      • Itazura, on 10/29/2007, -6/+7"No, it does NOT require notification for birth control. It does for use of the clinic."

        In order to get birth control you have to enter and use the clinic....so yes...yes you do.
      • HOOKSTER1231, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5You are missing the point, it has come down to this because a vast majority of parents take no responsibility for their children.
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3That's what everyone says when something goes wrong.

          The vast majority of parents work 40+ hours per week -- that's a problem everyone has. Quit demonizing people who have issues with teens -- because that is everyone who has teenagers.
          • LeeSoong, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1schools should go back to = educating = students, not . medicating . students.

            no more pills to calm them down, no more pills for when they get horny...
    • DreKor, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8I agree that there is an odd double standard IF birth control is dispensed more freely than o.t.c. painkillers. However, that's not the important part of this argument.

      The school is not forcing children to take birth control. They have made it available (as I understand it, typically by parental consent). Now, there is a hands-off-my-kids argument out there. Nobody is touching your kids. The kids have to seek this medication out. Now, if you're a good enough parent, you can talk to your kids and keep them from going on the pill, and possibly even from having sex. Then you have no problems, congratulations, you're awesome. But, if you couldn't, or wouldn't, stop them from having sex, then you don't have much of a chance of keeping them off birth control. And, if your kids do seek it out, thank god one of you is being responsible.
    • dotlizard, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Actually, around where I live, parents cannot give permission for a child to use any OTC 'drug'. a child (up to age 17) must have a DOCTOR's written prescription to take OTC meds such as tylenol while at school, and the meds must be provided by the parent and administered by a nurse. They are not allowed to posess ANYTHING, not antibiotic ointment, not calamine lotion, not Tylenol, NOTHING at all, and can get expelled for having such contraband.
      So it would seem odd by those standards to dispense birth control, except of course for the ever so slightly more dire consequences that might ensue from a pregnancy, as compared to an unmedicated itch, or a headache...
    • glxyjones, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1I think it is important for the parents to know if their child is on a drug that can alter or have such an effect on their health.

      However, would this not COMPLETELY defeat the purpose to begin with? The kids are having sex without their parents knowing it, that seems pretty obvious. So WHY would they ask for birth control when they know that their parents will be told and all the trouble they went threw in keeping their parents out of the loop, is now wasted. I'd imagine that none of the kids would ask for the pill since it would be just as easy to ask their parents themselves, which ultimately is what would happen anyway.

      I read that the school treats the pill as a last option and that consoling is the first option, followed by the pill. If a parent signs the consent for the student to use the clinic (and they DO need to give consent for that) than you are putting faith in that clinic to know what the child can and cannot have, including allergies and other medications (since the parent is the one that initially provides that). Hopefully, the school would require follow up visits by the young girl to check on her condition and ask if there are any unforeseen side effects that are taking place, and if so, stop administering the pill until determining what is causing that side effect.
    • bluesnowmonkey, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1"It actually requires their notification except where rare exceptions to the rule have to be made."

      So, it requires it, except when it doesn't? You hedged the crucial point. How rare is rare? How do you know it will be rare?
  • Goodbyeworld, on 10/24/2007, -16/+29There is a reason that healthcare should not be nationalized. This is that reason.

    Too many variables and someone will always try to cheat the system.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/23/2007, -13/+10As someone who can't afford decent health care because if you're not part of a corporate employee pool, you can't get decent deductables or rates, let me say I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion and hope you don't continue to cut off your nose to spite your face.
      • moin1097, on 10/24/2007, -8/+13But you can afford a computer and an internet connection?
        You sure have your priorities straight.
        • Coven, on 10/24/2007, -5/+14Dial Up: $15 a month
          individual health insurance: >$250 a month
          computers are cheap nowadays. who says Dumbledorito is surfing the internet on a brand new PC/Mac?
          • asskey, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1But Dial-up kills!
          • flygirl62, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Cost analysis accepted.
            But, to be fair, I think moun1097's point was that one should be saving every dime possible and doing without any luxuries before crying poverty.
            Now, on the flip side, Dumbledorito might need the internet to earn his/her living...
          • bluesnowmonkey, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Internet, luxury?
    • dillyhoo, on 10/23/2007, -7/+6This article has nothing to do with nationalized health care. All schools have a nurse or someone who handles emergencies when a kid falls sick in class.
      • chaosium, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4These are the same people who want to ban public schools, so it's all the same to them.
  • leetleo, on 10/24/2007, -4/+52With the exception of life and death emergencies, you need a guardian's permission to give a child drugs. Period. There is no gray area, it's clear and simple.
    • dotlizard, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3pregnancy can be life-threatening. it can be (in rare cases) fatal, and can definitely destroy a young life. I think we need to keep that in mind.
      • Neiby, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4That's still not a good enough reason for a school to medicate someone's children without their knowledge.
      • thewrathoffluff, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You missed the point of life and death emergencies. Pregnancies are not immediately life threatening. i.e. you have a little more than a couple minutes to solve the problem of an ectopic pregnancy.
    • DanaLynn86, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You missed the part that parents must willfully sign a waiver stating that this is okay.
  • DiggLive, on 10/23/2007, -23/+6This is what happens when you take God out of schools.
    • dillyhoo, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8No, this is what happens when you take "reading the article" out of Digg comments. The article isn't about the ethics of the birth control pills, it's about the legality of administering education to children (which is not mentioned in the Bible).
    • Bing11, on 10/23/2007, -6/+9God graduated middle school in '78. I know, I cheated off him on tests.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/23/2007, -7/+5shove god up your fat ass.
      • RedNeckerson, on 10/23/2007, -5/+6Oh my. How rational and scientific of you.
        Comments like that are going to make your time in hell fairly interesting.
        • HOOKSTER1231, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5God reads digg? Also the bible says that all sins are equal in the eyes of the lord, so why would him saying that have any effect on his time in "hell"?
          • hiikeeba, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Never use the Bible to argue with a Jebustani. They get cranky when you know more about it than they do.
          • brokencrystal, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2Oh yea! God reads digg. God knows your thoughts and knows what you do and say and type. Is this surprising?
        • chaosium, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1Your gimmick is terrible.
      • SquigglyP, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Why should i be rational? YOU BELIEVE IN A ***** FAIRY TALE!!!
    • Superjet, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Ignorant over-simplification. God has been out of Western European middle schools for decades, and they don't have this problem.
      What gives?
  • dillyhoo, on 10/23/2007, -5/+8The author is 100% right about parental oversight (has birth control even been tested on 11-year-olds?), and it voids the point of the program. No (sane) parent would consent to their 5th grader being administered birth control, and those parents should give it to their kids themselves.

    It's a hairy situation when a 12-year-old gets knocked up, and there's no solution. Developmentally, kids that young don't yet fully understand abstract consequences without them being drilled into their heads, and efforts to educate parents and children, as well as to provide kids with after-school activities should be intensified.
  • Tearlock, on 10/23/2007, -7/+22Last thing I want is for my 11 year-old daughter is to be pumped full of hormones/drugs altering her normal bio-chemistry just for the sake of preventing a pregnancy. Birth control can't prevent STD's either. This whole idea is a half-assed solution. If the kids aren't using condoms, worrying about pregnancy is only half the battle.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/23/2007, -9/+6What about for regulating her periods?
      • bamapachyderm, on 10/24/2007, -2/+12For an 11 or 12 year-old? Come on. Doctors don't give BCPs to girls that young for that; it's NORMAL for young girls to have irregular periods.
      • Tearlock, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Weak! Puberty sucks for everyone. But pills should not be the answer to how to help kids deal with the inevitable, e.g. (the awkwardness of menstruation). Just think about what you're suggesting. A school of all people, altering the body chemistry of a young childs vital developmental processes for the sake of schedule convenience. I would suggest you read briefly about the side effects of bcp's and get back to me on the ethics of that argument. That's like destroying a child's metabolism by shoving diet pills down their thraot to save money on bus fuel.
      • LacY, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I agree that using BCP to regulate periods on an 11 or 12-year old is going a bit far--you're supposed to allow the body time to regulate itself, then if it doesn't, take alternative means. BUT there are occasions where young people take BCP, such as to lessen symptoms of PMS, etc. So yes, young kids do occasionally get put on the Pill by doctors. And yes, the side effects on the back of the box sound dire, but honestly, have you read the side effects of ANY medicine? They all read like that--I'm not too worried about having a blood clot as a result of being on the Pill.
    • DreKor, on 10/24/2007, -4/+14Personally, the last thing I want my 11 year old daughter pumped full of is babies, but that's just me.
      • RedNeckerson, on 10/24/2007, -5/+9So teach her to keep her legs shut. Personally, I don't want to pay welfare for your 11 year-old's baby OR birth control. Are you raising a child or a hooker?
        • DreKor, on 10/24/2007, -5/+8Hooker, why? Not that I'd expect anything else from your wife's daughter.
        • Dush, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1That's somewhat of a good point. People's tax monies are going to pay for that birth control.
          Maybe the girls should bring in money to pay for the pills rather than it coming from the taxpayers.
          The parental consent issue aside, schools simply making it available is one thing but public subsidy of it is another.
          If people in the community really don't agree with it then they should remember this and fire their school board rather than being whiny.
    • mpn401, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8The last thing I would want my 11 year old daughter doing is having sex at all.
      • dotlizard, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1Well that's kind of a no-brainer there isn't it? No one wants their 11 year old to be sexually active. but if we fail to prevent it with all our appropriate intentions, then what?
        • Neiby, on 10/23/2007, -5/+1Then they get a ***** abortion. This isn't hard, people.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2That is where good parenting skills come in.
    • Tearlock, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Nobody here wants a pregnant teen in their family, and I plan on stressing abstinence to my children, but in terms of birth control, pills are a poor choice of contraceptive. At least condoms also block STDs. Unless they are allergic to latex this is by far a preferable alternative to drugs that can potentially alter a child's body and mind during their formative years.
  • geoken, on 10/23/2007, -11/+11So let me understand what you guys are saying. There is a school with a medical clinic inside it. Some student comes in and tries to grab a few of the free condoms they give out. Are you guys saying that denying this kid is better than giving him the condoms. Do you think this kid will a) Have sex without the condoms or b) Tell his parents he's planing on having sex and needs them to sign a form so he can grab some free condoms?

    Oh, and BTW, maybe you guys should try and get the other side of the story as well. The school board has some nice stats disproving the link between available birth control and the increased adolescent sexual activity you guys are hinging your argument on.
    • RockStories, on 10/23/2007, -1/+9This isn't about condoms, Geo (did you read the post?) It's about hormonal birth control like the pill and contraceptive patches. Also, there's nothing in this post whatsoever about adolescent sexual activity...the whole point is that that's a red herring, and the medical consequences alone are enough to be controlling in this case.
    • geoken, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Those things don't involve the student simply walking in and having them handed over. Those require the clininc doctor's consent.
    • signal15, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2The fact is, this stuff needs to be available. My dad took away my condoms when I was 15, and the whole time he was yelling at me, I was thinking "Man, that's not smart to take away condoms from your kid."

      You can drill it into the kid's heads all you want that they need to use condoms, however, not all of them are going to listen and the pill is a good fallback method. Sure there are health risks, but are those health risks more common than people getting knocked up? Who knows, no one seems to have provided any statistics. A non-hormonal IUD might be a better solution. But either way, access needs to be given to these options.
  • Nudar, on 10/23/2007, -2/+26I didn't even know what sex was when I was 11 years old. It's scary that some kids that age are actually having sex and getting pregnant. I grew up in the 90s so I'm not that old either.
    • davdev, on 10/22/2007, -5/+4I grew up in the late 80's early 90's and I know for a fact that a few of my friends where having sex that young. There was one girl who used to give her "boyfriend" handjobs in front of all our friends

      Unfortunately I didn't get any until a little later in life.
      • moin1097, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2Your hand could reach down that far?
    • EndersGame, on 10/23/2007, -0/+14I grew up in the 90's as well, and the kids at our school were definitely not having sex at 11. I remember one of the only 'dating' couples at our school was still afraid to have their first kiss at 11, no joke. Of course that was sixth grade, by 7th grade couples were getting closer and by 8th grade our class had its first known blow-job incident. Maybe I just lived in a sheltered community but this comes as a shock to me too.
    • mayara13, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0I figured out what sex was on my own back when I was 5 or 6. I didn't need to be told what sex was, as I had a brain.

      I didn't do anything with that knowledge until many years later, but still, I can't understand how someone can reach age 11 without knowing what sex was. Honestly, that's what scares me -- that there are kids who don't know at that age...
  • 1forallallfor1, on 10/23/2007, -3/+12Birth Control. For Middle Schoolers? I didn't start puberty until 16. What would these kids need condoms for, balloons?
    • davdev, on 10/23/2007, -4/+10You were a late developer if Puberty didn't hit until 16. It normally comes around 12-13 for boys, a little earlier for girls
      • rnwen2750, on 10/23/2007, -1/+65th grade here. I agree that 16 is on the high side of the curve.
    • Bing11, on 10/23/2007, -9/+416?! Are you serious? I think you may be kidding yourself, as being that late is unheard of.
      • rnwen2750, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5I had a female friend who did not start her period until she was 17.
        • chaosium, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Maybe she had an eating disorder.
          • mayara13, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0My mother started at 16, and I did at 15. Neither of us had eating disorders or anything. We were just late bloomers (and menopause likewise starts late in my family). A friend of my husband's from when he was in high school didn't start until she was 17 either. It's on the tail of the curve, but it does happen.
      • geoken, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7The point is that the norm is a lot younger.
    • mayara13, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I didn't start menstruating until I was 15, but there are girls who give birth at age 12. It's not all that common, but it does happen.
  • rnwen2750, on 10/22/2007, -3/+3Regardless of whether you think middle schoolers should use birth control or not (as an issue of sex or as an issue of period regulation), was there not a study that linked increased birth control use with life-long weight gain?
    • bamapachyderm, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Not that I don't believe there was such a study, but if it said that, it sounds like BS to me. It's probably coincidental rather than causal. They could probably do a study saying "smoking is linked to lifelong weight gain" too, just because there are overweight people who happen to smoke.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Reinforced chairs and comfortable shoes cause obesity -- studies have shown there is a direct correlation. Everyone knows that.
    • Tearlock, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You're never going to get any kind of "proof" about these sorts of things. There will always be debate. So you are wise to worry about side effects caused by birth control pills. It has been shown to alter weight, hormone levels, and has been observed to contribute to symptoms of depression. As if kids weren't moody enough sometimes...If you're worried about it, then don't let your kid have it.
      • alexiadaisical, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Have you been on birth control pills? There are two kinds, one of which does not up the risk of blood clots or stroke because it does not contain estrogen. As far as weight gain - yeah, in their bras. And depression? Wouldn't you be depressed if society expected blood to come out of your genitals for a week every month? Birth control causes fake "periods" that can either be lightened or done away with completely. Birth control is so much more than than its name would suggest and it has many health benefits.
      • LacY, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1What you say it true, but a lot of people have these symptoms (depression, weight gain, etc) BECAUSE of hormone fluctuations. Going on the Pill regulates the levels of hormones, and can actually help with weight maintenance and depression. It all depends on the person.
  • Scira, on 10/23/2007, -7/+19Anyone under 16 just should not have sex. If they willingly do after being taught the risks, they should accept any and all responsibilities. I'm just mean like that. If you tell a kid not to do something over and over like hit a dog, and the dog bites the kid. Go dog.
    • DreKor, on 10/22/2007, -5/+3We invented birth control to remove some of those risks. There's no reason not to use something to protect yourself. Do you force your kids to not wear their seat belts in the car?
      • jdoe562, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2Your analogy doesn't work very well. Do your children sneak behind your back and ride in a car without you knowing about it, nor you wanting them to do it?
        • mayara13, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1It happens. I agree the analogy falls flat, but that's not where it does.
      • thewrathoffluff, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Why are we comparing the need of riding in a car to the stupid whim of a teenager to do something stupid?
      • brokencrystal, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1There is no reason to have a child under 16 driving the car in the first place! You don't let 11 year olds drive cars do you? The same applies to sex.
        • mayara13, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1You don't need a license to have sex.
    • joessandwich, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3That's nice in theory, and I also think kids shouldn't be having sex that young, but just because we think they shouldn't have sex doesn't mean that they won't.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -2/+2Yes, old fart -- just keep telling the kids what they shouldn't do.
      I'm sure the ones having sex right now are listening to every word coming out of our old fart mouths.
      >> Not trying to be harsh -- but how do people forget so quickly what it was like to be a teenager? Is there a lobotomy at age 25 or something?
      • Dafon, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I'm only 20 years old and sadly the things i didn't forget about my early years are things like idkfa and load "$",8,1. Maybe this is just me but i think it's pretty easy to tell why people forget what it was like to be a teenager.
    • hotspot102, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1As long as its safe sex, it should not be a problem. The problem lies, in the administrations Abstinence education program, its better to teach nothing at all. Telling kids that something is wrong and they shouldn't do it simply won't stop them from doing it, especially something that is fundamentally tied to our biology like "sex". If you think societal pressure can really suppress the human urge to reproduce you need to reevaluate your logic. Perhaps one of the better examples to support this is the tally on
      the google search queries from the state of Utah. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C69521781 ...
  • chenyu768, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Whatever happened to wearing condoms? I mean wouldn't it be easier just to teach safe sex, instead of passing out birth control.
    • czeman, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2Whatever happened to blow jobs?
    • chaosium, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Condoms break.
      • Dush, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Wait, what? I've always been told by condoms manufacturers that they are the surest form of birth control/std prevention.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It's the "planning ahead factor."
      Kids just don't plan ahead. Another issue is that they really get in the way of an already awkward activity -- kids at this age would rather have cancer than notch up any more embarrassment. Condoms are ideal -- but not as trustworthy.
      • chenyu768, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2well birth control is planning way ahead, you have to wait like a month b4 it takes effect, and gotta keep it up everyday, i think condoms are still easier
    • brokencrystal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2What happened to teaching abstinence?

      Who's job is it to teach the children this stuff anyway? Your children do not belong to the state... Be parents and do your job.
    • Sandurz, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Aren't...condoms...birth control...?
  • AriaStar, on 10/23/2007, -4/+8Teens are going to have sex, like it or not. I'd rather these kids be safe about it and cut the risk of pregnancy. I mean, we've all seen how "well" this whole abstinence-thing has gone.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2And some parents are not going to be good parents anyway, so why don't we all just give up and let the kids do whatever they want? /sarcasm
    • taintedzodiac, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I dunno about you, but I'd rather my child use a condom than birth control. I'm more worried about STD's than having a grandchild.
    • leogodin217, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Actually, I know many teens who don't have sex and many adults who didn't have sex as teens. The "abstinence-thing" is not affective when coming from the government but parents who promote abstinence are very affective.
  • czeman, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8Do they make smaller condoms for little kids? lmao
    • czeman, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2I bet the marketing people at Trojan are scurrying to come up with something fast. I can just picture their meeting now..."What images of childhood heroes can we stamp on a new line of condoms?" Pretty soon they'll be marketing the ***** for 3 year-olds and we'll have Wiggles Condoms. lol
  • Ricemanstm, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6Ah so, since the parents are obviously incompetent than we should just say "***** it" (no pun intended) and appear to condone the behavior by offering birth control? Like it or not, sex does come with a fair amount of responsibility with it, both emotional and physical. Children are NOT equipped to handle it.
  • breedingGenius, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3Ewe. Who's trying to ***** these middle-schoolers?
  • ZenMojo, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4People are missing an even more important point. This school is also a functioning clinic. If you don't live in Maine, you can't really compare your experience with anything this school is doing. The real question is, can FUNCTIONING CLINICS give birth control to children in any case without parental consent? This has nothing to do with school at all except for the fact of proximity.
    • Neiby, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2They absolutely should not be giving medication to children that could potentially have some serious side effects and consequences. Parents must be made aware of this sort of thing. It is arrogance and authoritarianism that allows the government to think that it can do this in the first place. I seriously can't believe this is even up for debate. It's stunning to see how far we've fallen as a nation when we think that this sort of thing is okay.
      • alexiadaisical, on 10/23/2007, -1/+0What if the medication in question, birth control pills, have been found to have many health benefits?
    • alexiadaisical, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Parental consent to attend the clinic is already required.
    • mabhatter, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1like the other poster said, if they have to have consent for the clinic, but not necessarily what the kids talk to the doctor about. generally older teens have doctor-patient privilege even from parents at least without good reason for the doctor to give it out. Doctors don't typically rat out a girl to her mom the first time she has sex.. often in nice "republican" homes, those girls come back with broken arms and black eyes when mom and dad beat them up! Or get thrown out of their houses... and these are the nice "christian" people. Let alone if a boy wants advice about being gay... The medical profession would love to tell the parents up front, but if they got in the habit of telling girls wouldn't come to them for help and pass on STDs and have babies in toilets because they don't know better.
  • JRL40K, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4Females are starting puberty at around age 11 now. My psychology teacher said it's because enviromental factors like hormones in meat, all the sexual stuff on tv and a few other things i can't remember. Sad how we don't think of the consucenses of our actions.
    • thewrathoffluff, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5How do you figure "sexual stuff on tv" causes early puberty? Good grief, where did your teacher get this information?
    • brokencrystal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Puberty does not equal maturity.
  • jstepno, on 10/22/2007, -5/+0Middle school boys can't ejaculate...so why do the girls need birth control? Is there really that much of a problem with pedophiles?

    Anyway when I was in middleschool, it was all about 1st, 2nd and 3rd base and oral, never vaginal. Whats wrong with todays kids?
    • Baroja1898, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Um, well, yeah, they can. At least some can. At least I could. And I don't know when you were a kid, but sex in 7th and 8th grade, while not common, wasn't out of the question in the early 80's. I woulda' loved free, discreet condoms back then.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Um, this is not true. However, I still don't think they should have sex at this age.
  • Shelbo2000, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0they do bring up a good point. I know that I wasn't fully aware as to what I was allergic to and stuff till later in my teens. I never really got sick, so it wasn't something I thought about. I do definitely see the point their making though. Also, do they make tiny condoms, or would they have to import them from other parts of the world that might not be as well endowed as the US?
  • MikeFallopian, on 10/22/2007, -6/+1This is absolutely sickening. I don't even have words to describe how I feel right now - since when are drugs better than a coat hanger and a bottle of rubbing alcohol? Simply disgusting.
  • Ghoztt, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3We need to start teaching personal responsibility to kids. Not "Take this drug then go ***** yourself silly"
    • Baroja1898, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Exactly, but what do we do in the meantime? Most parents teach responsibility and most kids don't need birth control from their schools. But what about the parents who don't parent, who don't take care of their kids? We let their kids have kids who will probably be raised just as poorly so they will in turn have kids at a young age. Do we let all these unwanted kids starve or do we pay for them? Either way, we lose.
    • shupy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Not one member of the school board has said "take this drug and ***** yourself silly". You can sit around pontificating all day about what we "should" do. It won't help a 12 or 13 year old that has become sexually active protect herself long enough to mature into an adult. We know what happens when kids have kids, they can't support them, and the cycle continues.
  • huckabees, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3I work in a large variety of public schools and there are a disturbing number of young children (in early adolescence) having sex. Schools are very concerned with limiting teen pregnancy and extremely concerned about keeping child pregnancy (which this is about) at 0. They can't enforce behavioral rules off the grounds of the school. On the playground you can't hit other kids but when you're at home there's little they can do. This is a case where they can have some sort of off campus effect which is by distributing these pills. The people having children are the ones who shouldn't be because they expose their children to irresponsible behavior at an early age. If these parents won't make sure their children aren't having sex much less protected sex than I think the school has a pretty reasonable excuse to issue these pills. If you have a good communicative relationship with your child and you are open about discussing sex in a mature way with them then I don't think you're going to have issues with them sneaking behind your back to get birth control. The parents most scared of this are going to be the ones who's relationships with their children are weak or non-existent and extremely religious parents who view the discussion of sex as taboo. This says more about the absence of parents than any school's radical ideas.
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Kids that age always had sex and got pregnant. They then either went away for a year to visit their aunt, became a nun after a year's wait as a slightly rotund noviate, or got married at 13. We suppress this fact. Collective amnesia, cognitive dissonance.
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Kids that age always had sex and got pregnant. They then either went away for a year to visit their aunt, became a nun after a year's wait as a slightly rotund noviate, or got married at 13. We suppress this fact. Collective amnesia, cognitive dissonance.
  • tbom, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1hollywood & mtv says, "kids, have lots and lots of sex and you'll be popular and rich. just look at britney!" That's why we should make condoms available to middle schoolers...
    • Baroja1898, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Um, I think they know you have to be famous first or it won't work. But, yeah, they'll all stop having sex if we take away their MTV, which doesn't even show music videos anymore. And instead of the Hollywood movies, let's replace that with the Bible, because there's no sex in the Bible.

      Brittney Spears' lover should have used a condom, don't you think?
    • czeman, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Soon, middle-school cheerleaders will be modifying their skirts to expose their hoo-haas at sporting events.
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Britney was famous for staying a virgin until she was 19 or so. Amazing that she's the poster child for slutiness in America. And yes, condoms would keep them unpregnant and uninfected with STDs, which would be ideal if we actually cared about the kids themselves, rather than hurting the cute cheerleader who would never have slept with us at that age by forcing her to get syphilis or endure hernias and broken bones carrying a baby too big for her. God wills it.
  • bigfatpaulie, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3Reactionary uninformed blogpost. Buried.
  • artface, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1In portland, does a minor need permission to get a tattoo? thank God the government (who, apparently, is God) can decide that I have no right to know what's going in or on my kids. what a relief...
  • purpmint008, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1They invented abortion.
    Nobody wants tax dollars wasted after pills that can't prevent STDs.
    Also: parental oversight, middle-schoolers' bodies' biochem probably ***** up, etc. etc.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3Look, it's this simple; If there was actually a need for these stupid Parental Notification Laws -- then you have already lost any influence you had on your kid. If the kids are bypassing these laws -- then they also aren't listening to the "just say no" message. Besides, if I were growing up today, I would be less likely to listen because I would be damn sure that about 90% of what I was told was BS -- why would this be different?
    Well it is -- getting pregnant can ruin your future as a kid. Having sex? I think we all survived it -- more likely the people who didn't have even bigger issues. I know every red blooded American male wanted to. So the main thing that stops kids is; Access, and any influence their parents may or may not have on them. If you notice the laws, and the "just stay ignorant" sex education pushed on us by the religious right (don't forget, led by a Crack-smoking Snorkel Commando) haven't been working... then I think as a parent who wants a kid not to turn a mistake into a life-long path of struggle, then perhaps you can let your kids have birth control AND tell them not to have sex.

    It's like wearing body armor in a war zone and telling everybody you are there to create peace. Not a bad idea to me.
  • jubilee123, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1quit saying "hormone-altering drugs" to get the point across. we got it the first time
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1PREGNANCY is the ultimate hormone altering condition. It truly ***** up a woman's body, those hormones, and that watermelon compressing her internal organs, herniating her belly muscles, breaking her bones. Shhhhhhh.. no one talks about that...
  • floatingpoints, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3Quit controlling natural biological functions and you won't have these problems. Girls can start puberty as early as 9 or 10 years old, this isn't news.

    I'm in my mid-20's and I remember back when I was back in 5th or 6th grade that people were starting to do the whole "going out" thing, which was basically "come over and make out and try to not get caught". Some were lucky enough to be unsupervised long enough to do the whole deed. It was pretty funny because people ALWAYS did it in the most awkward uncomfortable places. Ask how they got away with it, "Oh, we ran into the woods and ended up doing it in a pile of leaves behind this big rock when her parents went to the store for 10 minutes" or "He snuck out and they ended up doing it behind their garage where no one could see." Crazy places, and not exactly the most ... "romantic", haha.

    Say hello to hormones.

    I don't know why it is, but adults like to pretend that stuff like that doesn't happen at "such a young age". Newsflash: it does, and it always has. You've been there, unless you've shut out those memories.

    If you tell them not to, they're drive to do it will be even greater. Simply educate them as to how much their lives will get ***** up if they get pregnant, and to use protection.

    You shouldn't need parental approval to give out birth control, because if the parents say no and those kids have sex anyway (and they will), then what? You're just asking for trouble.
  • MacLiberal, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4What's wrong with kids having sex? This should be encouraged, it's a natural part of growing up. Middle school kids are coming of age and there is nothing wrong with experimentation.
    • czeman, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I bet you'd be singing a different tune if your daughter came home with a load of chode in her hair that she forgot to clean out. I know I would.
  • skeeterbug84, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1There is already a federal law in place, giving medical facilities the ability to treat minors without notifying the parents. The school isn't giving this stuff out, there is actually a medical facility attached to the school. I am so sick of these religious whack jobs trying to push their beliefs onto us through laws (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, abstinence, etc). A true conservative republican would pass laws to keep the government OUT. Vote Ron Paul!
  • threemagic, on 10/22/2007, -3/+1The point of this is: they aren't promoting anything. Obviously parents aren't doing their jobs to begin with or this wouldn't even be an issue. My kid wouldn't go on birth control even if it were an option. Why? Because I raised her right. Those of you that want to fundamentally raise their kids and use fear as the only deterrent to wrong because you are too stupid to talk to your kids are the reason this Middle School is at this point.
    • alexiadaisical, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0What if your kid is having periods that last more than a few days, making her so sick and in so much pain that she can't get out of bed?
    • celerity, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Some may be too stupid to talk to their kids, but you sound too stupid to listen. I don't know how many friends of mine came from lovely families and did all kinds of nonsense without Mommy & Daddy dearest ever knowing.

      That said, I don't think it's smart to hand out the pill without parent permission in middle school. Most of the girls I knew who had birth control for sexual reasons in middle school were willing to lend boxes to their friends, or would miss days and screw up their systems, becoming depressed because of fluctuating hormone levels, taking extra to try and stimulate breast tissue, etc. Birth control is harmless when used properly, but in middle school I couldn't keep track of it if my life depended on it.
  • scamper22, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0Quite frankly, in the current public education system, I agree they should provide birth control/condoms. They can't teach you that it's 'wrong'; they can only teach you how stupid a decision it is to get pregnant/stds. Birth control and condoms do both of those very well.

    Yes, i have personal experience with the stupidity of some girls. She went to an urban public school. She was a muslim who was too afraid to get birth control pills for fear her parents might find it. So instead, she ended up getting pregnant and getting an abortion. Umm, i think she should have taken the birth control pills...not just practically, but morally.

    Now we can argue that if she had gone to a proper islamic school, she would not have been having sex...although that itself is debatable. In a public school, they should absolutely make these freely available.
  • nitroburn, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2Did everyone forget that we as people used to have kids at MUCH younger ages? This whole waiting until you are 30 thing hasn't been a luxury we have had all our human history. People seem to be acting like sex at age 11 is some crazy new phenomenon.

    I still remember the kids in elementary school that bragged about having sex.
    • thewrathoffluff, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I think there might be a slight difference between 11 and 30.

      Oh, and there was that minor detail in human history that people actually got -married- before they started having their kids, no matter how young they were. If you want to go back to historical habits, then maybe we should usher in the return of stoning women to death if they've had sex with anybody -but- their husband.
  • HotWingBias, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4When I was 11 I was still BBQing my little sister's barbie dolls and the only thing I wanted to do with boys was play soccer...

    I'm 22 now so it's not like I'm an old grandmother...but does anyone else think kids are becoming sexually active at excessively young ages?
    • potterboy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Blame it on... the internet.
    • ubergeek09, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Bad parents, they want attention.
    • shupy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The majority of children becoming sexually active very early tend to be the result of early sexual abuse. Bad parents, no parents or abusive parents. Take your pick.
    • jenmorrison, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0Amen sista! I'm only 24 and I agree.
  • userperson, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0Darn, I thought the missed point was suppose to be
    "People are never going to agree, so public education should be abolished, so people can use their money for schools, pills, abortions, adoptions, or whatever",
    ... but that'd be too easy.

    Also it's more fun to force everyone else to do it your way.
    NO! your body isn't your property, you're not old enough, you have to carry the child to term and care for it for the next 18 years.
    NO! we're trained professionals know better than you. We can do whatever we want with your children.
  • Rich711, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Because motrin and inhalers have nothing to do with birthcontrol. It's far worse for a teenager to die of an asthma attack without medication than to get pregnant but that is what is being given priority. I personally believe it's about creating an attitude toward sex and privacy that reenforces an abortion on demand and without parental consent society. And because a minority of parents are bad the rest are kept out of the loop. It's once again lowering the bar because of the lowest common denominator ...begin Digging me down now.
  • noriko, on 11/13/2007, -3/+0finally, me and sarah can have a night where wishlists never end and not have to worry about the consequences,,,
  • kds405, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1How about just......no.
  • alexiadaisical, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0This post was a waste. For one, parental consent IS required for kids to attend this clinic. And two, the author doesn't seem to know that certain forms of birth control pills do not raise the risk of blood clots or stroke. And that there are many hormonal birth control methods beyond pills. If the hormonal part scares you, research the health benefits of the pill. It is more than just pregnancy protection.
    • unwobblingpivot, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0parental consent is required to attend the clinic, but it's consent in the form of a waiver to allow your kid to use whatever medication is prescribed without you knowing. and despite the fact that many hormonal birth control methods exist beyond the pill, the point of the post was not to argue that the pill itself was wrong, but that in fact a parent would want and need to know if the child was ingesting anything that alters the hormones like birth control does, for pure medical reasons.
  • brokencrystal, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Can't parents just take the responsibility to know what their children are doing and when and where they are doing it? You don't just drop your thirteen year old off at the mall and let them do whatever they want. (especially in my neighborhood) Seriously. Kids do not get to make the rules until they are of legal age. They are not allowed to control every aspect of their lives until they are mature enough to know what they want out of life. Until then, they need to be guided in the right direction. They need to be taught responsibility. Parents today are just too lazy or not well enough involved in their children's lives. The state doesn't own your children, you do. You have to be a parent and not a friend to your children. They do not need anymore friends. What they need is a parent. If asked if I (as a young (31yo) parent of four myself) would rather be liked or feared. I think the answer should be neither. I want to be loved and respected.
    • Dush, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0It's really too bad there isn't a pill for better parenting the government could force on us instead.
    • shupy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Sure would be nice. Move into Disneyland. There are parts of the world where children are forced into marriage very early. As a 31 year old, you are in no position to pass judgment on anyone. There are a multitude of reasons that children find themselves facing adult issues before they are adults. When your kids hit adolescence, you will find it far more challenging that you imagine. And there can be a lifetime of issues that occur. You could lose your husband, your job. Find yourself alone and struggling. If you are working full time and trying to keep track of four teens, it will not be quite so easy.
  • littleL, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1The real problem here is lack of communication regarding sex and everything that comes along with it within families. If your 11 year old daughter wants to have sex, she will whether you preach abstinence or not. The best way to go about it is to sex educate and explain all the possible consequences. And the only reason, I believe, why an 11 (12,13,14 or even 18) year old would get the pill from their school without parents knowing is because the parents are not trustworthy, or would not agree. So whats the option? Not agreeing, no pill, possible pregnancy, or whats worse STDs, or knowing, talking, teaching and helping on that matter?! Your kids your choice. But honestly...otc's are ok....?! Have you ever looked at some of the ***** in a simple aspirin even? Seen from that point, the pill is no more harmful and has no more side effects than a Tylenol or similar stuff. And the fact that the pill is such an 'unheard of' thing....i guess more for the reason that it implies sex. Wooohoooo...SEX! No one will ever be kept from it if they want it. That much is true.
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1In the Netherlands, kids get complete sex education, including introduction to birth control, at age eight. They have the lowest child pregnancy rate in the world, I believe, and the lowest STD infection amongst kids. The kids have sex quite young by American's fictional standards, middle school age. They don't have the body shame we have, the sex shame we have. The kids are smart, unpregnant, and no one is told Jesus is fixin' to burn their privates with a blowtorch for all eternity. Just say No doesn't work. Intelligence and compassion and tolerance of human needs, THAT works.
  • demonbaby, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It's not just specific parents who have failed, but the vast majority of the parents have failed for not speaking out against the grotesque pop culture whorishness that is shoved down these kids' throats - particularly girls - that creates this kind of behavior in the first place. I'm talking about MTV, The Pussycat Dolls, Bratz, Black Eyed Peas, etc - highly sexualized messages marketed directly at pre-pubescent kids, encouraging girls to dress provocatively, and instilling shallow, backwards social values which tell impressionable young girls that the way to power and self confidence is through sex appeal. Parents need to pay attention to what's being marketed to their kids, and speak out about it. Why are Bratz dolls so hugely popular amongst young girls? Those ten year olds aren't buying them with their own money...
    • catbeller, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Girls have wanted to have sex long before "whorishness" was apparent. And whores figure heavily in the history of the Godly. God's men have always had a stable of fallen women (fallen because theyshoved them over) around to get some strange while the wifey was home praying and cooking. "Whores" are women who dare to have sex without Godly license. Boys, strangely enough, are never called whorish while banging those whorish girls. Why is that, I wonder. And why are girls who give it away freely called whores? It's like the name caller has a problem with young, sexy girls that he can't bang himself. Britney, call for you on line one...
  • DanaLynn86, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1I wish this
    http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=141 ...
    was linked and not nasty blogspam. Lets look at facts not a catholic moms blog.
  • ChasKnight, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1I'm pro choice but, as long as the parent has to assume the financial liability for any medical problems a child might have
    and will also be the one helping the child through the emotional issues, birth control needs to be handled by the parent and child. As for the issue of 12 year olds having sex, we have a presidential candidate who's religion is based on marrying 12 year old girls to 60 year old men. I'm appalled that he's seriously considered.
    • celerity, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Nice comment... until the part about the presidential candidate.
    • metroidchief, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1His religious beliefs have nothing to do with that. You are ill Informed and are spreading misinformation about a person's beliefs that you have no info to go on. The practice of polygamy in the mormon church was stopped in the 1890's and if you even try to do it in the mormon church today you are kicked out.
  • funkytaco, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2A conservative article masquerading as parental concern. Clever.
  • psients, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You don't own your kids. No one does. That's the point.
    • LesTesmel, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0your a friggen jackass...
    • mabhatter, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1excellent point, and the reaction to that is the problem. Sex is one thing you can't really stop them from doing without severe measures. It's THEIR bodis and they'll find a way if they want to do it. It's where how good of a job you've ALREADY DONE as a parent is tested by how they choose to act. At that point, you can only try to help them thru the decisions they made about their bodies.
      That said, the best thing to do as a parent is constant supervision. Know where your kid is at, what they are doing. Expect them to check in. Don't allow them "alone time" without checking up. When kids hit 11-12 most parents start leaving them home alone more because they don't want to pay sitters... that's when they need "tended" the most. If they're in YOUR site as much as possible, then there's less they can try to do. It's not about spying on them it's about doing stuff with them so they're not doing other stuff.
      • littleL, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0and parents like that will know least what exactly their kids are up to once they're not around....
  • LesTesmel, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Just as the headline says I think most people are missing the freaking point here...
    To me the real issue is the individual rights of parents being taken away by the state. All this discussion about pro-life/pro-choice, the discussion of traditional values and the virtues of abstinence vs. pragmatic approach to teen pregnancy and medical issues (STD's ect.), what gets lost is the fundamental issue: Loss of parental rights and what I see as a major encroachment by the state...As with almost all political discourse these days the only thing anybody brings to the table is idealism and the dogmatic garbage inherent in that particular ideology. All the secular progressives who voice their support of the school district probably burn with anger when considering the Patriot Act , but so blinded by their ideology are they that most can't see that this would be just a big an erosion of personal rights. The same goes for the religeous zealots who pretend to give a crap about personal rights in the context of this argument, but would be the first to take away a womans right to choose. Until the tone of political/cultural discussion changes the culture war will rage on, ultimatly it is the politicians and the special interest they represent who end up winning. We are too busy running around in circles chasing our tails to see that little by little, ever so surely they are taking away our
    rights as individuals. The sad part is that we are willing participants in this...we let them do it.
    • littleL, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I think you forget that 'children' have rights too. and if their CHOICE is to take the pill without their parents knowing, for whatever reasons, that should be their RIGHT. So where does that come into your argument?
      • atheinostic, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2***** A.
        What about the rights of a teenage girl with ultrafundie parents? Why the hell should they get veto power over her choice to use birth control?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.