What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
10 December 11
Chamber of Debate
CONTRACEPTION - under-aged sex
Claire Truscott - Guardian Unlimited, Monday December 3 2007
Children as young as 12 are being given the morning-after pill without their parents' knowledge, sparking outrage among family campaigners.
Information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that 128 primary care trusts, or 84%, in England have policies that allow pharmacies to supply the morning-after pill to girls under the age of 16.
Of these trusts, 70% said they would be prepared, under some circumstances, to insist on these policies as a condition of granting a pharmacy licence.
Some of the primary care trusts had no lower age limit for supplying the morning-after pill, while others ranged from 15 to 12 years old.
The information was published in Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill, a study by the Family Education Trust, a conservative pressure group.
It criticised the policy of giving out the morning-after pill to girls under the age of consent and said it was having no impact on teenage pregnancy rates.
It said such a policy encouraged breaking the law and greater promiscuity, and was also a health risk to teenage girls.
Norman Wells, director of the trust, said: "The confidential provision of the morning-after pill to teenage girls is a key strand in the government's teenage pregnancy strategy and extravagant claims have been made about its ability to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.
"However, the fact that not a single PCT was able to point to any research evidence linking easy access to the emergency pill with a reduction in teenage pregnancy rates suggests that their policies are being pursued out of sheer desperation or blind ideology."
He added: "Over recent years we have witnessed the systematic removal of every restraint which in previous generations served as a disincentive to under-age sexual activity."
But Juliet Hillier, of Brook, the sexual health charity for young people, defended provision of the pill.
She said: "One of the solutions to poor sexual health of young people is to make service provision better, not campaign to have it removed altogether as the Family Education Trust seems determined to do.
"Pharmacy provision is essential to improving access to emergency contraception and must continue to be available to all who need it.
"It is also vital that young people have access to confidential services and the support to establish whether they are making safe choices, what other factors are at play in their lives and what wider emotional and physical support they need.
"The younger the person, the more important this support is, which may require additional time and resources that pharmacies do not have."
Should girls as young as 12 be given the morning-after pill without their parents' knowledge?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
Contraception is wrong in principle, because all planning leads to decline in any economic activity, whether State planning or private. There is always a good reason to put off conception if possible. Women are lazy & lack initiative. But without contraception men can decide to make babies spontaneously & so procreate humanity. “Men are culture, women are just biology”, as the American dissident feminist Camille Paglia wrote decades ago.
Besides, time has shown that Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI) was absolutely correct in all the predictions he made in his essay “De Humanae Vitae”, attacking contraception back in the Sixties: how it would undermine the family, erode morality, lead to declining numbers in the white nations etc.
Teenage pregnancy needs to be encouraged among indigenous English women, because it is the only way the English can survive as an ethnicity in the face of Foreign Occupation, ethnic cleansing ("white flight") & the mass abortion of English babies increasingly practised by the regime.
Moreover, a black mother of 14 told Oprah Winfrey, "Oprah, a woman of 14 has as much right to a baby as any other woman". Can whites allow themselves to fall behind in the race for survival?This is biological reality: some of our greatest Kings were born from even younger teen mums, eg Henry VII Tudor (from Margaret Beaufort, pregnant at 12 & a widow at 13, founded colleges at both Oxford & Cambridge) & Henry V, victor at Agincourt (from Mary de Bohun, 14).
although U.A.S is bad, the morning after pill should be given but after telling the parents first
What is extraordinary and outrageous is that the government is in fact using taxpayers' money to assist an activity that it has already said is illegal!
Those who control their sexual impulses tend to stay out of trouble by avoiding:
(b) unwanted pregnancy
(e) single parenthood
(g) under-achievement of their offspring
(h) likely criminality as a result of under-achievement and lower standards expected of them
(i) increased likelihood of drug-addiction
(j) increased likelihood of prostitution as a result of drug-addiction
(k) inflicting the damaging effects of their behaviour on society
I don't think girls under the age of 16 should even be having sex. If a girl at 12 years old asks for the morning after pill, her parent's should be informed. The law just backfires on itself really, you're supplying help to people that have indeed broken the law.
Isn't there an age of consent set at 16 in this country? Isn't it illegal to have sex below this age?
Therefore the morning after pill should not be given as it encourages teenagers to have unprotected sex, then more STDs.
We need proper sex education to tell them not to, and those who do engage in illegal activities should see the effect of it by giving birth and possibly being arrested for it.
It seems to me that trying to compel pharmacists to sell the pill to girls as young as 12 necessarily also amounts to encouragement to girls that age to engage in sexual intercourse with young men and also encourages the young men in that regard. Such intercourse is clearly against the law.
I don't know about the current law, but the Attorney General should certainly be asked whether the people in Brook (the so-called sexual health charity for young people) are, by encouraging and facilitating such law-breaking, committing the crime of conspiracy and if so, what does he intend to do about it?
This is just yet another example of the 'laissez faire' attitude adopted by the liberal left.
Andromeda was correct, if an under-age girl asks for this contraceptive, she should be made to disclose who the sexual partner was, and that person should be charged with 'unlawful sex with a minor!
It mustn't be a case of "Well they're gonna' do it anyway, so let's make sure there aren't any unfortunate by-products' like babies!
Do we or do we not have an age of consent, ie 16? If we do, as I believe is the case, then any sexual activity that takes place under that age is therefore illegal. For the sake of order and consistency, it would be nice if the government would either repeal that law or stop aiding and inciting the breaking of that law! An application for judicial review on behalf of the Family Education Trust would be the way forward if they want to test the legality of this policy.
Perhaps energies could be devoted towards prolonging (i.e. NOT sexualising) childhood.
This is a very difficult idea. On the one hand, in cases of incest etc, it would protect the child but at the same time give the abuser more freedom to abuse!
Both prospects are horrific.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved