his influence is in us. as is the mans upstairs


which means that we are all satan and we are all god.


think about it like this.


god can do no evil.

satan can do no good.

but we can do both.

I saw interviews of mother's on both sides of the debate. What you say here is pretty much the same as what I heard said from those mothers who were in favor of the school clinic and nurses handing birth control pills, the patch or some kind of IUD, (not sure about this) to these 11, 12 and 13 year old girls.

The question that came up the most is what are these parents and the school board thinking about the consequences down the road by putting a young girl on powerful drugs that change her system?

And furthermore, if the girls desires, the parents are left completely out of the discussion.

Can an 11, 12, or 13 year old girl truly perceive the risks of oral contraceptives? Can she understand the various risks of life threatening thromboses from these medications? Major unaddressed side effects related to 'the pill' are blood clots. This is the hush-hush issue. However, it's a prime risk factor.
To take 'the pill' as an adult is risky enough. But it is one horrific move to administer 'the pill' to girls in grades 6 through 8. Some call it criminal just because of the blood clot threat alone.

In a radio interview, the head of the school committee said that no one in the school could be held liable if something terrible happened to a girl. It would be the doctor or the nurse who examined and counseled the girl who would be accountable.

The whole thing is simply bizarre to me. I'm still not able to get over the idea that by state law, the state can have confidentiality with a girl and the parents are purposely kept completely in the dark.


If this goes through, it will only be a matter of time that it's all over the rest of the country. Maine is famous for it's pilot programs. Poor Maine kids are the guinea pigs.

what gets me is that people in the 1800s and early 1900s were getting married at 13.


my grandmother was one of those.

Ohhh, daniel...

Do you have ANY idea the door you just left open there?

LOL!

I'll leave it be...too easy!

my grandmother got married the first time when she was 13. don't know how old she was when she got married the second time. of course by the time i came along she seemed to know what she was doing.

lula: IUDs are only given to women who have already given birth and who are in a monogamous relationship.

I agree that there are health concerns for pre-teen girls regarding birth control (same is true for mature women as well). I don't see how schools would be able to provide BC without consent due to the health risks.

Pregnancy also carries risk for young girls.

well the issue of IUD's actually came up for these young girls. All they said about it was that while they could be offered the young girls typically don't choose this or diaphrams because of the training involved in usuage.



I would venture a guess that pregnancy would be less of a threat than abortions or continued sexual activity both physically and emotionally. I've seen young girls go thru with full term pregnancies easier than older women do. I think it's actually more natural and easier to have children younger than older.

There has been reports/debates/opinions for years on what BC really does to a woman's system. I've always been leery of going on the pill (never did)not wanting to mess with the natural hormones. I've never had the "issues" alot of my friends have had. We may never know why or where these "woman problems" come from. At least I know it's not from taking BC pills. Otherwise I'd always be wondering.



I guess I'd have to ask....why?

There is nothing to learn when it comes to an IUD and this is NOT something that would be issued to a grade-school girl.

An IUD is an intrauterine device that is inserted through the cervix and into the uterus. It can be hormone-based or copper (no hormones). It is left in for up to 5-10 years (depending on the type).

TW

Here's the direct quote I was referring to from the Maine Sunday Telegram along with the link...first the quote:

There are no plans to carry diaphragms or IUDs, which some women may prefer because they are hormone-free. But teenagers generally avoid using them because they involve special training to insert, Patterson said.



WWW Link

Thanks. The quote is mistaken though. Diaphragms are inserted by the user but IUDs are inserted in a doctor's office visit and are removed by the doctor.

IUD insertion is far easier for women who have previously given birth, therefore it is not typically (ever that I am aware of, although I am sure there are exceptions) used with women who have never given birth.

Women who are at risk for PID are also discouraged from using an IUD (hence the monogamous relationship requirement).

IUDs insertion also requires a rigorous pre-insertion well woman check up with labs.

The IUD doesn't require special training to use. Once inserted, they remain in the uterus and the woman checks the strings (by feeling for them in the vaginal canal) about once a month just to make sure the IUD has not slipped or begun falling out.

I'm not trying to be a snot about this and I hope I'm not coming off that way. IUDs would not be a BC option for teens. I don't see this happening. And not because of concerns with training for use.

Well maybe this doctor (who was quoted) was referring to what you wrote here? Not sure, but even the part about checking for strings may put off an embarrassed teen. I think what he was basically saying is that it's much easier for a young girl to just take a pill than to talk about and instruct them on usuage even if it's as you said "checking the strings."

Either that or maybe he was just referring to diaphrams although as you can see by the above quote I used it did seem to indicate both methods of BC. That's all I was saying. I've never used either, so I'm no expert.

"I'm sure educators all over the nation/world are waiting and watching to see how this goes over, and it's only a matter of time before this new idea spreads."

Or is rejected. Imagine how the Islamic extremist movement will use it lol, calling us all early impregnators or whatever propagandized message they can use to recruit more "Blow yourself up R-Us soldiers".

"I am very sorry and disappointed to read this last post by LW. Her insistence in going down the personal attack path as if something positive is added to the discussion never fails to astonish me. "

Instead of commenting on Whip's commentary to Whip, I'll just point this out to KFC...

KFC whips attack on your perception of your children is a reflection of her own shame, of her own past. She has issues. She also has a resistance to working through them, because it is everybody elses' problem. Attacking people online is a release for her. Disregarding the feelings of others she doesn't like or feels a need to belittle, is her MO. Also not the lack of factual basis for her comments. Enjoy.

There is no parent that wants their children to become responsible for their own child before they are able. In Maine, it appears board leaders felt the right choice for dealing with children who choose not to be guided by their parents wisdom or in absence of it, was to provide for planned contraception measures. It would make more sense for educators to do their damn job and educate children in a matter of fact way about the dangers or sex before they are ready to comprehend and execute the responsibilities of a parent.

Bottom line is people, children, young adults, adults, think and choose independently of parental and external influences based on their knowledge and perception. That is why this decision is so dangerous for children who are not prepared or able to accept the responsibilities that the consequences of these choices entail. Correct?

Yes, and I'm sorry for that. I also understand that hurt people hurt people. I think she's hurting deep down. There are times I want to throttle her and other times where I wish I could sit down and have a heart to heart with her. More the latter than the former....lol. But I'm only human afterall.



Correct. One thing not mentioned anywhere is the increased chances for cervical cancer down the road for these girls. I was told recently that more woman die of this than HIV. So what the heck are we doing even considering encouraging sex at such young ages?

One, didn't you advocate for the mandatory HPV vaccine? I seem to remember tangling with you over this. Why would you feel that it's not OK to hand out birth control in the schools, but it's perfectly OK to mandate the HPV vaccine, even against the parents' wishes?

Two, you were not only misled when you were told this, but horribly so. I have no doubt these facts came from your son, the eminent and respected researcher whom we should all immediately surrender our wills to because he knows so much more than us, but they are diametrically opposed to what is published by the CDC.

WWW Link

At this link, you will find the death rates per 100,000 women from cervical cancer. The rate is 2.4 per 100,000 women nationwide (HARDLY an epidemic, just for the record, let alone one demanding that we surrender our 12 year old girls to an untested vaccine). Now, let's move on:

WWW Link

At THIS link, you will find the death rates per 100,000 women from AIDS. The rate is 4.7 per 100,000 women, just shy of DOUBLE the rate of cervical cancer deaths. I have a hard time respecting the credibility of a scientist who feels that 2.4 is greater than 4.7. KFC.

NEITHER rate, by the way, is an epidemic, and worthy of the insane amounts of taxpayer money spent on these diseases.

HPV vaccine, helps women who choose to have sex later on in life. Birth control only helps prevent pregnancy. It does not prevent STD's or improper use of birth control itself.

Mandatory may be too strict of a compliance but mandatory HPV treatment is much more sensical than birth control access for children. Some adult women who have not had the HPV vaccine face serious consequences for sexual activity, married, financially, and emotionally able to care for children not withstanding.

Kids are kids, no encouragement or access to an enabling factor for sexual conduct should be available to them at the age of 12. The discussion about whether it is moral ends because the ethical regarding of allowing government to enable children to have sex in a regulated society such as ours is beyond the role government should play.

I see the correlation where the choice is more moral than ethical in the one instance however the demographics of the two groups are radically different.