Yes, 30 years olds can impregnate. But if this underage child is sleeping with a adult that's considered molestation. Pedophilia. It's wrong and illegal. And I'm assuming you're not saying she can sleep with a 30 YO, right?
I think the age of her partner ought to be a stipulation if you were going to help. Would you want your 15 YO sleeping with an adult?
No of course I don't think it's okay for a 30 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. If I knew this hypothetical niece was going to be (or already was) sleeping with a 30 year old I'd tell her parents because in that case there is a real chance that she is being coerced/manipulated/abused and the guy is doing something obviously illegal.
BUT, since telling her parents wouldn't necessarily stop her from having sex (with him or anyone else), I'd still get her birth control and/or load her up with condoms. Telling her parents is no guarantee that she won't have sex with the guy anyway.
Actually, I wonder if taking her to Planned Parenthood might be helpful in that kind of situation so that a medical professional--I assume if she let it be known to a medical professional that she is having sex with a 30 year old they might be under legal obligation to report it as a sex crime. At the very least, an objective medical professional telling the girl about the potential legal consequences to the guy might scare some sense in to her.
No, I certainly don't like it and it doesn't have to work that way. We could teach them not to.
But sex has become this consequence-free, no emotions attached, just something to do on Friday night thing. If more people had taught their children to wait until marriage (or at least if not marriage, adulthood) we wouldn't have the problem of teen pregnancy, rampant STD's (I can't watch a program without seeing a herpes commercial), and people sneaking behind parent's backs to help a child do something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Well I think there are some people who simply disagree with you about whether teens "shouldn't" be having sex in the first place. I have no problem with a mature 16 or 17 year old using protection and having consensual sex with a peer around the same age. I would never teach my child to wait until marriage because a) I have no reason to think that my child will want to, chose to, or be legally allowed to get married and b) I see no good reason whatsoever to save sex til marriage/committed relationship and c) there is no necessary connection between having sex before marriage/outside of committed relationships and teen pregnancy/STDs. Many European countries have just as much (or more) sex amongst teens but lower rates of pregnancies and STDs. In my close family, my aunt is absolutely the most conservative person when it comes to sex--she is also the only person in the family to have had an unplanned pregnancy (two actually) both while having sex after drinking, both within the first year and half of being married in her very early 20s. Both quite devastating to her when she found out she was pregnant and created a significant amount of financial hardship.
I don't understand why there appears to be an attitude that somehow saving sex til marriage/after age 18 is the cure to the problem of unplanned pregnancy and STDs. Plenty of married people have unplanned pregnancies and merely being married doesn't make that not a problem. Of all the elective abortions in the U.S. only 17% of them are obtained by women under 20. 33% are women 20-24. The other 50% are obtained by women 24 and over. One third of the total abortions are obtained by married women. Being an adult and being married doesn't make an unplanned pregnancy no longer a problem. It doesn't make one secure from STDs either. Globally speaking, having sex with one's husband is the greatest risk a woman can take with regards to being exposed to HIV. I believe the CDC estimates that half of all of the new STD infections each year occur in people over the age of 24--many of whom are likely to be married.
On a side note, I've always wondered how parents of lesbian teens look at the idea of their child having sex. Woman-to-woman transmission of STDs is certainly possible, but it is lower for almost every (if not all) STDs--often significantly so. I believe there still has not been one documented case of woman to woman transmission of HIV. And obviously pregnancy is not an issue. So I've often thought that if the push for abstinence and the disapproval of teen sex is all about pregnancy and STDs, parents/society/the government really has no grounds to object to two teenage girls having sex with each other.
Oh good grief. There is such an easy answer to this dilemma. Mothers and aunts, fathers and uncles, friends and neighbors must reach an understanding among themselves BEFORE a girl starts dating.
.
.
.
This shouldn't be something the aunt has to guess at. She should KNOW in advance what the parents' feelings are. I urge all parents of tweens and teens to make their feelings known to the other adults in your kids' lives. Heaven forbid your child seeks help, but can't get it in time because the other adult didn't know what you would approve of.
I completely agree with you. Just as some parents here might be livid if their relative didn't immediately tell them that their child was having sex or got them a prescription without the parent's knowledge, I think I would be livid that my relative didn't immediately shove a box of condoms in her hand and get on her on the phone with PP. It's best these things be decided ahead of time.
The trouble, I suspect, however, is that some of the girls whose parents deny their relatives permission to help her are going to be the girls who are most in need of help (because their parents are going to refuse it to them and/or punish them for having sex).