15 and legal?

In the last week the debate surrounding the age of consent being lowered to 15 has stepped up a significant degree. Professor John Ashton, Faculty of Public Health President, has argued that because many teens are having sex age 14-15, society must accept this and revise its laws in accordance.

His reasoning for this move is that it would make it easier for teenagers to get sexual health advice and would help ease the societal burden of teenage pregnancy. But is it really going to help teenagers, or simply add to the ever increasing problem?

Upon reading this, I couldn’t help but take a trip down memory lane and think about what my 15-year-old self would have thought about this. Young and well equipped to deal with the world (or so I thought at the time), I probably would have screamed “YES! LOWER THE AGE, I’M 15 AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, STOP TREATING ME LIKE A CHILD!”. Now, at 21, I can’t say I’m surprised that my views have changed rather dramatically. Firstly, I’d like to point out that, in my opinion, the law makes absolutely sod all difference when teenagers start having sex. It didn’t bother me or my friends. In fact, I can honestly say I’ve never met a soul who consulted the law before bumping uglies. I just don’t believe that the law is relevant when it comes to choice as teenagers will have sex when they want to which, sadly, in some cases, the law just cannot hope to control. Therefore changing legislation regarding the age of consent is a waste of government time and money which could be better spent elsewhere.

Secondly, the argument which John Ashton presents initially seems relatively impressive. A drop in teenage pregnancy and better sexual health advice for teenagers is a great motive for a change in legislation. However, would lowering the age of consent by 1 year actually achieve that? I would argue not. If this is what the aim is, then surely providing better sex education in schools is the way forward? Showing teens the reality of pregnancy will (hopefully) teach them that getting pregnant will not guarantee them the life they think it will. As for greater access to sexual health advice, there is already an abundance out there for young people. Family Planning Clinics are available country-wide which can offer many free services to under 16’s without parental consent being necessary. Perhaps time and resources would be better spent on making these more well known, which would help teenagers make informed decisions about their sexual health?

Lastly, I wholeheartedly believe that this will endanger more teenagers than ever. If teenagers are having sex at 14-15 now when the age of consent is 16, what is stopping the future generations having sex even younger if the law was changed? Ashton believes that this new law will “draw a line in the sand” at having sex under 14. Now I don’t know where he pulled this from (out of his proverbial, presumably) but I see the age of consent being lowered as a way in which teenagers will think it’s acceptable to start having sex before they can really know what they want. Additionally, Liz Dux, part of a specialist child abuse team, has commented that “predatory adults would be given legitimacy to focus their attention on even younger teenagers”, indicating the way this change could endanger teenagers rather than help them. Once again, Ashton’s argument seems to inflict more harm than good.

So should the law be changed? Here’s what you said.

I don’t think that it should be lowered, it’s just going to lead to more teen pregnancy and probably higher levels of STIs.

Teenagers are just going to start having sex even earlier than 15, the stigma of still being a virgin when it’s legal to have sex will make them want to lose their virginity even earlier.

I think it’s a good idea because it’s counter-productive to just ignore that teens are sexually active. However it means that we need more sex ed in schools so they know the risks.

Got an opinion? Comment below and debate away!