Seems now a-days many females are getting pregnant at a young age (12-17), whether by choice or accident. I myself have seen over 30 12-16 year old females get pregnant, almost allways by accident for not using protection during intercourse. Including a friend who became pregnant 4 times (from ages 12-13), the 4th time she decided to have the child.

IMO I believe pregnancy (or even sex for that matter) at a young age is wrong, it causes many problems for the family and the individual. Sometimes even results in serious health problems, or even death.

I agree that pregnancy at that young age is an issue, but I disagree with the 'nowadays' part.

This has been an issue for years and is not any comment on the morals of modern society. Anybody who tries to tell you that teen pregnancy rates is increasing is ignoring the fact that the recordkeeping has improved markedly and that many teen pregnancies in previous years probably went unrecorded.

I suppose much depends on the climate if we are going to nail down the optimal age for pregnancy. It used to be pretty normal for mothers of first children to be in late teens and it still is in some regions. I suppose where people mature faster, the problem of pregnancy occuring at such a young age diminishes or even disappears.

If we stick to the standard Western country, then yes, it doesn't seem too convenient. Sometimes it even seems wrong. Still, I believe that if someone is too young to be pregnant, she is too young to have sex in the very first place. It has been a mistake to bring sexual liberation to schools and start throwing pills and condoms around with detailed instruction on how to make use of them and stop listening to bigots who say it's only for marriage. :rolleyes: Also, if pregnancy is dangerous to health, typically sex is so, as well, especially if the reason is related to unfinished puberty.

What's next, if abortion so often brings a traumatic experience to the woman who obtains it (as it should), the experience can only be more damaging and more defining if it occurs at a young age.

The conclusion is that it's not pregnancy which is the real enemy. The real enemy is lack of responsibility in sexual matters, whether this is the underaged couple's own irresponsibility or the responsibility that makes an older male make a teenager pregnant. Not to mention the epitome of irresponsibility which is sex crimes.

The real enemy is lack of responsibility in sexual matters Once again I agree, but I disagree that this is a modern phenomenon or is in any way related to sex education in schools or the distribution of condoms. Teenagers have been having sex for centuries. It was just a bit more secretive and covered up in prior years.

Correct on that, HB. There's less hypocrisy around than before, but being so overt in such matters can also have bad results of its own, such as removing the idea that certain things are wrong. However, who is supposed to arrive at the conclusion, arrives there on his own, I guess. So you probably can't have a golden way...

I still blame the distribution of condoms and pills, as they create the illusion of support and comraderie between the children who want sex and the authority that stands behind those who distribute the contraceptives. With that kind of support, youngsters feel stronger and perhaps strong enough to face traditional moral authorities such as parents or priests. And here starts the polka.

Yes, in some countries or cultures it is seen right to have sex and pregnancy at a young age, but that is because they are more mature about how to handle the situation IMO. However, like chev has stated, in western life pregnancy at a young age is seen as wrong, because it is IMO. And like he also said, sex before marriage is the cause of such problems. Would you rather risk having certain complications for simple sexual pleasure, when you can just have self-discipline and wait till you find the right person?

For example, many times males tend to use females for sex by acting as if they were in love (and vice versa too). The female then allows the condition, resulting in unnecessary emotional pain, which can be quite traumatic sometimes. An other example would be those who have "one night stands." Even if you are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you are still not invincible. Eventually you will have an accident, or meet the wrong person, and possibly wake up the next day to find out that chances are you are pregnant. There are many negative results that can come from sex before marriage IMO, one of these being accidental pregnancy at a young age.

The modern day sexual liberation views are also a problem. If society makes having sex at an early age seem like a "normal" thing to do, then what is expected from those who grow up with such views? Once again, an other thing to point the finger at would be parents. Many do not converse with their children about sex, even if they might not think sex before marriage is wrong, at least educate your child about the proper protection and correct age the human body and mind is ready for such a thing as sexual intercourse.

I think the key is really in teaching that it's okay to wait for the right moment. I don't have much faith in teaching the "no sex before marriage" line. It's good if it works for you but I would not teach it in school as sexual education. The important thing to teach is to wait for the moment that feels right, be it marriage or whatever. I don't believe in any set dates for sex, one is ready for sex when one fully acknowledges the responsibility and the risks.

Teaching the proper usage of condom however in my opinion is very important. Most teenage pregnancies are caused by condoms not being used or used incorrectly.

Pregnancies in women under the age of 18 tend to be higher risk than those which occur in the 18 - 32 age group. The younger the woman, the higher the risk, with a swing up towards riskier pregnancies after about 32. More than four pregnancies in one woman (carried sufficiently far) also gets risky.

@Morgoroth: I agree, teaching to wait until marriage in school isn't a smart thing, since so many people have different views. However, what I believe SHOULD be taught is the negative consequences of having sex at an early age, to show that a child should wait until their mind and body are ready. Teaching more about condoms and such will enforce the 'sexual liberation' that exists these days. I believe that should be left to the parents to teach, if only they did.

Is there actually anything contentious to discuss here? The main points seem to be:

1) In modern, first-world society, teenage pregnancy is bad for myriad reasons. Check. I don't think anyone will argue with you there.

2) Preventing unwanted pregnancy is better than terminating it. Again, that strikes me as pretty much a given.

3) Participants in a sexual relationship should be aware of the potential consequences and prepared to address them responsibly. Another basic assumption, IMO.

Eld, are you trying to spur a discussion of how to accomplish #2 and 3, thereby (one would hope) minimizing the number of unplanned pregnancies that must be addressed? The who and how of THAT topic is ripe for much debate, indeed.

I saw this segment on 60 minutes the other day about "virginity pledges". Here's a link to the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml

A few things that I found interesting:

Amy Fritsche and Rick Gutierrez are high school sweethearts in Fort Myers, Fla. They’re planning to do what more than two million young people have already done in the past 10 years: Take a pledge to remain virgins until marriage.

"You are not a virgin, right?" Bradley asks Rick.

"That's right, that's right… It's a second chance," says Rick.
This I found hilarious. A non-virgin taking a virginity pledge! LMAO! Eh. So it's more of an abstinence pledge, OK, but still hilarious :)

"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It’s almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."
This I found very interesting. Although it's does help with delay of sex, these pledges are more risky when they decide they can't hold out any longer.

Not only are kids who take virginity pledges just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases as kids who don’t, but they are even more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior. This finding - something that really surprised Bearman -- appeared two months ago in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

"Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don’t have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex," says Bearman. Another very interesting point.

And finally: Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.88% of those who think it's a good idea to take such a pledge cannot stick with it! I wonder at the stats for those who don't make such a pledge...

@Rally: I simply started the topic to see others opinions on the matter, which exact point of discussion it lead to wasn't specified. But yes, I guess you could say it's mainly about "how to accomplish #2 and 3". And IMO, the way to do that would be to teach children abstinence.

@BTA: That IS very interesting indeed.

A quick web search will tell you the problem with the virginity pledges. Basically it boils down to confused kids agreeing not to have vaginal sex, but they instead have higher cases of anal and oral sex. Now that they feel there is no chance of pregnancy they are even more likely to not use protection and therefore they increase the risk of STDs.

But really, is teaching the Law of Chastity that bad a thing? At least mention it while talking about birth control and safe sex. If you aren't having sex, then you are not going to contract any STD or (for the women involved) get pregnant. Perhaps the dangers of sex may enable an intelligent discussion on the blessings of Chastity...

Basically it boils down to confused kids agreeing not to have vaginal sex, but they instead have higher cases of anal and oral sex. Jesus Mary mother of Joseph, where were these Virginity Pledges when I was just a sprouting lad? To think of all the convincing I had to do! Morality is a beautiful thing indeed! :evil:

But really, is teaching the Law of Chastity that bad a thing? At least mention it while talking about birth control and safe sex. If you aren't having sex, then you are not going to contract any STD or (for the women involved) get pregnant. Perhaps the dangers of sex may enable an intelligent discussion on the blessings of Chastity... I agree that chastity should be talked about but strictly in the non religious sense. Preaching religious dogma in a public school is like enlightening the young ones about the beauty of communism. But yeah chastity is an option and should be mentioned and talked about.

"Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don’t have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex Is this really all that different from what adults do when they find they make an agreement they would rather not maintain? They look for ways to bend the rules more to their liking? Technically, they are keeping with the letter of the agreement, but not the spirit of the agreement. They're expoiting a loophole here to - well to put it as bluntly as possible - exploit other holes.

People have always made pledges and failed to keep them - directly or indirectly. Or have found ways around those. You could even ask what's better and more in line with the oath: trying and failing directly or keeping in accordance with the letter while going around it on principle? Something the Catholic Church teaches, apart from chastity and other rules, is that there is always a second chance if you fail. There are as many chances as you need if your heart is true. So, yes, BTA, I believe in another chance. :p

As for "other holes"... what really counts? What you have done, in what way and how many times? Or what your heart and your spirit is right now at this moment... and what truly is there? The most optimistic part of Catholicism (or similar systems), but sometimes the most difficult one to grasp and come to terms with, for other reasons. It's as simple and as difficult as this.

I honestly can't speak for these teenagers chev. I don't know what they were thinking at the time they made the pledges, or bent them to their liking. It is plausible (though not probable) that they really felt they were maintaining their pledges if they didn't actually engage in intercourse. There may not have been much more to their actions than teenage naivety. The more probable though is they were looking a way to maintain the letter of the pledge while still seeking some physical satisfaction.

Of course, as a guy who was once a teenager, I can say that I definitely would have signed a chasity vow if that meant that it would increase my chances for oral sex even if it decreased the chances of vaginal sex.

Perhaps someone pushed them into taking it. Maybe it was a part of a campaign they had no say in but served as mascots. I've done my share of going around the direct meaning of some tenets and don't want that anymore, it seems pointless now. But everything comes with age and those kids are still on their way to learning things. The hard way, most probably.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I was a teenager I went out of my way to do the opposite to what was told. So as a teenager I would most certainly have had sex before the legal age just to annoy everyone.
I was a scary teenager.

Shell, if you were my kid, I would have shown you the back of my hand!! :lol:

The reason why most teenagers (IMO) brake their vow/pledges (or just end up having sex) is due to the strong link between 'love' and 'lust' at their age. Their hormones are pretty worked up (some more then others), making them quite 'active' (I should know, I'm 17 :p ). All that along with the current 'norm' in having intercourse at a young age is pretty strong pressure to those not raised in a morally strict family/society. They fall in love, get a chance to be alone, kissing leads to touching, and touching leads to sex.

The problem is in drawing the line. As Eldular said, one thing leads to another. The key is to stop while you can. My girlfriend and I started dating when we were both 18, pretty much the height of all the hormonal issues. We are now both 21, and have been dating exclusively from the beginning. We are both virgins and the reason is simple. We knew where to stop. We've never gone beyond kissing because we don't know if we'll be able to stop or not. Because of this, we feel quite comfortable with each other, even when alone on the couch late at night. We both know the standard and neither one of us is willing to break it. If you honestly want to avoid problems like this, just set a standard, one you know you can keep, and enforce it.
By the way, condoms and other contraceptives have little impact on STDs. Some of them have antibiotics on them, but that only helps if the STD is bacterial, and even then, it isn't even close to 100%.

By the way, condoms and other contraceptives have little impact on STDs.You should remove the words "condoms and" from that sentence. Though condoms are not 100% effective in preventing STDs, it is hardly correct to say they have little impact.

Condoms have quite an effect on STDs, and it does help against AIDS and viral diseases unless our education system has been screwing with us which I seriously doubt. Now the problem is that if and when a condom breaks which it can do sometimes, you're in trouble. So casual sex with people you don't know well is pretty much playing with fire. With proper knowledge and quality condoms the risks can however be reduced a lot.

Ah, forgot to mention that taking a chastity pledge and substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal intercourse is not a good idea from a theological point of view. By Catholic rules, if it includes intentional orgasm, it's already mortal. Actually, intentionally turning someone on to the point of having an orgasm, ejaculating, fantasising about sex in his mind etc, is mortal. So why bother with the pledge?

Ok, a lot of STDs (I don't actually know how many) are bacterial or larger. A condom will stop these so long as there are no leaks. The molecular weave of the rubbers and plastics used to make condoms, however, are actually larger than viruses (HIV), allowing them to penetrate unhindered. Interestingly, the original condom was made of deer skin, which would stop viruses, was much less likely to break, and was reusable.

THis is true:

The molecular weave of the rubbers and plastics used to make condoms, however, are actually larger than viruses (HIV), But this isn't:

allowing them [HIV viruses] to penetrate unhindered. If we're comparing straight size, yes, the virus is smaller. To put it into terms that are easier to visualize, if the virus were the size of a basketball, the size of the matrix latex forms would be equivalent to the size of a doorway. So on the surface, it surely seems like your statement is true, as one can easily fit a basketball through a doorway.

The problem is that you are assuming that the latex is only one molecular layer thick. You're thinking that once you pass through that first door you're out of the condom. It's not like that. The latex thickness is actually hundreds of molecular layers. So while it's easy to throw a basketball through a doorway, try throwing a basketball through several hundred doorways. That alone would be difficult, but to add to the complexity, those doorways aren't lined up in any way.

Oooh, great analogy, Aldeth!