quote: Tomorrow's potential troublemakers can be identified even before they are born, Tony Blair has suggested.
Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a "menace to society".
He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.
He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children were older.
There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he said.
[...]
There had to be intervention "pre-birth even", he said.
Families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late, said Mr Blair.
And there was a "pretty good chance" children of teenage mothers who were not in stable relationships would grow up in a "difficult set of circumstances" and develop behavioural problems.
He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point "pussy-footing".
But he said: "If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children who are growing up - in families which we know are dysfunctional - and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves."
Help had to be offered, but "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear, he said.
posted
If done well, it could be a real benefit I think. If at-risk families are offered financial assistance, child care, and the children are given access to after school activities, mentors, big brother/big sister type groups, I think it would be great for all involved.
I have doubts whether the government would manage to do anything more than stigmatize families and throw money at the problem (read: their constituants' pet "benefit" projects).
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here! Here! Strict licensing before birth and a background check at least as extensive as a good adoption agency requires. Now when I get to be King, we will make some real progress.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you imagine the kickbacks the "Adult Relations and Supervision" board would ask?
And, short of mandatory abortions, how would the govt stop children born out of "safe" environments? Mandatory infertility?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what's more appalling... the proposal or the fact no one seems to be particularly appalled about it...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you can choose to be appalled, or you can choose to be realistic. I've tutored children in difficult living conditions, and I know people who grew up in "high risk" environments. The kids who had more support, more opportunities, and more stability did significantly better than the kids who had more problems.
Is this idea more appalling, or is letting children grow up in circumstances that provide them fewer opportunities to succeed, and more opportunities to be criminals?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this proposal is that, in practical terms, these "interventions" would be forced on families lower down on the socioeconomic ladder, and more well-to-do families would be left alone. The thing is, as I know from personal experience, "troublemakers" are just about as likely to come from families that have all the material comforts as they are from families that don't have much.
I think there might also be a tendency to concentrate "interventions" in order to enforce the majority culture's beliefs and values on families that don't share the majority's customs or religion.
Naw. This is a bad idea all around. Complete non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do see your point, that enforcing cultural beliefs on a minority is a bad thing.
It's really a shame that people who offer to help others so often attach strings.
I suppose it's also a shame that often times those who need the most help are in such circumstances that no simple method of assistance will prove adequate.
posted
My first reaction when I read that article yesterday was, "What? Are they serious??"
It's no doubt a well-intentioned idea, and it might even be a sort of good idea in theory, but it would definitely a bad, bad idea in practice.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) It assumes that the state can raise children better than some parents, and the definition of those bad parents is not based on how they have raised children, but on socio-economic circumstances. In other words, this creates a class of State-Raised children.
2) It is done not to help children, but as a homeland defence matter, to protect the state. This creates a ready-made and mostly defenceless group of people ready to take the blame for anything that goes wrong. We are willing to sacrifice the rights of the children's parents to protect the state. If that doesn't work, would sacrificng the children to protect the state be really that hard to imagine?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that this kind of policy stems from the almost unbelievable problem that certain cities and areas in England have with groups of young people. These young people are highly aggresive and violent, destructive, and act as gangs, making neighbourhoods unfriendly and dangerous.
Something needs to be done to help children as they grow up in these areas which produce young people with very few prospects. They need to be encouraged to stay in school, to value education and intelligence (and variety), to respect others, and, above all, to want to makes something of themselves- get a good job, go to college or any other secondary education etc.
There are certain cultures, which, in England, almost discourage the kind of self-improvement that America considers one of its highest principals.
Tony Blair is obviously trying to implement a plan to get to the children who are born (often to young teenage mothers) into this environment which does not offer much hope, help or guidance for its children.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have the same problem in America and no amount of government interference has fixed it.
In fact, it has been argued that it has made it worse by making it easier for families to split up and for women to have children out of wedlock.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
sounds like a touch of the old Ultraviolence eh? make everyone watch Clockwork Orange and become rehabilitated? =p
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I am not necessarily saying that what Blair is suggesting is right. I was explaining where the need for this kind of intrusion comes from.
Secondly, I do not believe you have the same problem in America. I think that this kind of gang/culture is particular to England... partially because part of their culture attempts to imitate American "gangsta"-style living and what is known in America as the lifestyle of "White Trash".
However, this is combined with a culture that might resent education (for example) as being not something that they do, the youth and inexperience of teenagers and the violence and criminal activity of any young gang.
Add this to the pre-existing exacerbating problems in England such as the remains of a class system (and thus the constant reaffirmation of class in order to establish your own place in society), many cities shutting down much earlier than they would in America (giving young people very little to do) and very few positive examples of people making something of themselves.
There exists at this moment no system to deal with such a culture.
quote:made it worse by making it easier for families to split up and for women to have children out of wedlock.
These young people are never married, so "splitting up" is not an issue. They may be as young as thirteen when they have their first child. They are not 'families' in the traditional sense.
I think it's quite a different situation.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welp, I'd like to see every girl get an IUD automatically as soon as she hits puberty . . . like getting your MMR vacc before middle school. Properly inserted they cover for 10+ years and don't cause infections. And I think it should be paid for by the government. And pretty much no questions asked if she wants it out, but a waiver signed if she does get it out . . . And across all socioeconomic boundaries. And I would want very graphic sex ed in addition (I don't the IUD should be an encouragement to engage in sexual activities, just a preventitive "in case" thing) My version of sex ed would involve some of the pictures from the STD section of my college Microbio course. Ergh.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're describing pretty much exactly the same situation, Teshi.
Do you really thing innercity street gangs are unique to the UK?
And "Resent" education? more like disdain it.
As for shutting down, almost any major city has much more in the way of crime and violence than a small one. Shutting down early seems to actually prevent the problem.
When a young girl thinks there will always be someone there to protect her.. Daddy... the Government... then she WILL do crazy stuff like get pregnant at 13. I mean, why not? The government check is coming. Heck, with a check she can maybe move out of the house (into government housing of course) and be on her own. She doesn't even have to work. Just collect that government check. And who cares who the father is?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We recently had a 13 year old in town give birth to her second child. And a ten year old give birth to her first.
There is definitely a problem, whether/what intervention is a viable solution, though, is a hard question.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pixiest, I'm curious about your suggestion that support for young mothers will encourage unwanted behavior, in this case, getting pregnant just to move out and get a check. Would you explain your reasoning?
My guess would be that the sort of attitude and behavior which lead to 13 year olds getting pregnant has little to do with the promise of free money, and more to do with a breakdown of the fundamental family and societal supports and pressures that would urge against it.
I think there exists a whole culture, or at least whole groups of society which are so out of sync with what we think of as normal, that only massive restructuring or generations worth of change will solve the problems.
I don't know if support money will solve much, but I don't think it will make things much worse.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC: The fact the government has stepped in and thrown money at the problem has created an attitude of "What do I need a man for? The government will take care of me." that has lead to the breakdown of the familial unit in the first place.
Now a 13 yr old will boink around and not care if she gets knocked up because the government will be there to take care of her if she does.
A 13 yr old boy will boink around and not care if he gets the girl pregnant or not as well. He won't have to take care of her. Heck, he won't even have to pay for the abortion.
*sigh* I'm Soooooo glad I was a lesbian at that age...
posted
I wonder if that explanation isn't too easy though. Do you think sexually active 13 year olds are really thinking ahead far enough to consider who is going to support a child? A 13 year old father doesn't have any means of support. It makes little to no difference if he stays around. He doesn't have the maturity or the values to raise and act as a positive role model for his child. He's already shown that by having a child at 13.
In families where the parents have sufficient income to support their daughter's pregnancy, is there an abundance of young-teen pregnancies? If not, I don't think a very strong case can be made that the availability of future child support gives children an incentive to get pregnant.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think that most of the 13 year olds who are "boinking around" have thought far enough ahead to have considered what will happen if they get pregnant or who will pay for what. The "it could never happen to me" mindset is pretty strong at 13.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I really don't think that most of the 13 year olds who are "boinking around" have thought far enough ahead to have considered what will happen if they get pregnant or who will pay for what. The "it could never happen to me" mindset is pretty strong at 13.
The thought of having sex did not even enter my mind when I was 13, there was no way in hell I wanted to. I was still trying to figure out what about girls guys older than me found attractive.
I am not willing to just up and dismiss the idea that Tony Blair is suggesting. He is a very smart man, and I would like to see the specifics of it before I just dismiss it as the next step towards living in George Orwells, "1984".
I am not sure if the right to propagate ones genes is an inalienable right. But then again if 2 people consent can the gov't intervene? And if they can, on what grounds? The rights of the unborn children they will have?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a moment, allow me to play devil's advocate.
We regulate many things when they start to interfere with the rights of others. You can't use free speech to incite a riot. You can't pursue your happiness at the expense of someone else's rights. You may feel like you deserve more than you have, but you can't steal it from someone else.
Why should a 13 year old who can't support a child in any way be allowed to get pregnant?
By having a child, they'll be putting the child's life in danger. They'll be putting a burden on the rest of society, who will have to raise that child.
Parents are sometimes found unfit to raise their own children, and their children are legally taken from them, for the children's own protection, to be raised by another. Disallowing young-teen pregnancy could be thought of as a preventative step in the same legal system.
If a person is unable to show fitness to raise a child before the child is even born, why allow the person to become a parent in the first place?
</end devil's advocate>
I understand, obviously, that there are myriad possibilities for abuse and misuse of this system, and that as with any solution, it doesn't address the underlying problems that cause 13 year olds to have children.
Still, it's interesting, I believe, to question some of the things that we take for granted, and consider why we feel that way, and if we might not need to rethink some of our beliefs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you're saying MIghty Cow, however I see a lot of potential problems with this philosophy, similar to those of the eugenics movements.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, the post you quoted was in response to Pixiest's suggestion that the government "throwing money" at the problem was what encourages 13 year olds to have sex.
Most of the studies I've seen indicate that what encourages 13 year old girls to have sex is their much older boyfriends, not the prospect of a government handout.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree BaoQingTian. It also worries me that it's ripe for Jim Crow type restrictions, among others. It's a very slippery slope, and I honestly don't think the government, or any ruing body for that matter, has much hope of pulling it off in a fair and just manner.
I think that a better solution would be to offer incentives not to become pregnant early, and try to foster a situation such that there will be more viable alternatives for young people, more role models, more hope for a brighter future. It certainly won't be easy, and it will ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think doing nothing is worse.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that a better solution would be to offer incentives not to become pregnant early, and try to foster a situation such that there will be more viable alternatives for young people, more role models, more hope for a brighter future. It certainly won't be easy, and it will ruffle a lot of feathers, but I think doing nothing is worse.
Give children who are good a govt sponsored WEEKLY ALLOWANCE!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
2) Slip it into every soft drink, beer, and sports drink created.
No more underprivelded kids to threaten our future.
B-- 1) Promote the only forms of sex that are completely 100% risk free from having children--Homosexuality. (Do this by having famous stars, such as John Travolta say, caught kissing members of the same sex).
What I find most worrisome about this is the way its presented. "Kids from this group are a threat to real British folks, unless we do something about it."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
B-- 1) Promote the only forms of sex that are completely 100% risk free from having children--Homosexuality. (Do this by having famous stars, such as John Travolta say, caught kissing members of the same sex).
What was it that book the Wanting Seed said? Oh, yeah.
posted
Are vasectomies invariably reversible now??? Sees like a bit of a risk for the guys . . . I don't want people to be prevented from ever having children, if they want to later.
I just think IUDs are long term, low maintenance, low risk of failure, and low risk of complications. Things like Depo are another option, but really high hormone doses are scary. There doesn't seem to be a viable option for guys at the moment (unless vasectomies relaly are fully reversible, but still, that's surgery).
About allowances for "good" kids: I would love love love to see a system of positive kickbacks/ incentives for responaible behavior. Eg., if you attend and complete a government sponsored parenting program at least nine months prior to the birth of your first child, you get a nice little tax credit. And other stuff like that. Positive reinforcement.
I'd want the parenting class to be pretty basic - no ideology pushing allowed. Just projections of how much a child will cost per year, ways to encourage good behavior, how to chage a diaper. Basic basic. And then there could be continuing ed classes for later.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Samarkand: Wouldn't vascetomies for the boys have fewer complications? They're reversable these days...
IUDs can do stuff like fall out.. plus it's having a foreign object in you all the time.
Well, you know. A non-invasive procedure is way worse than humiliating and possibly causing extreme pain and distress to girls because after all, you'd be taking their MANHOOD away! Duh.
Samarkand, do you realize that they don't usually give IUDs to women who haven't had children?
posted
I agree with Samarkand about the vacectomies. They are sometimes reversable, but not always. Forced sterilization is a very bad idea to me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying the vacectomies are a good idea.
I'm saying that IUDs are not a good idea. And I'm also annoyed that whenever it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, we look to the girl instead of the boy. We put far more emphasis on a girl's "purity" than a boy's, and I think that's sad.
quote:We put far more emphasis on a girl's "purity" than a boy's, and I think that's sad.
pH, I agree with you there. I can tell you that I know parents with both boys and girls who've given their girls lectures about staying pure but the equivalent lecture to the boy is how to avoid being "trapped" by a girl and forced into marrying her. Their daughter should be pure and chaste, but every other girl is just a slut looking to trap their son, never is it expected that their son should abstain from sex until marriage, just make sure no one "traps" you.
I get highly annoyed at that attitude.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: And I'm also annoyed that whenever it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, we look to the girl instead of the boy. We put far more emphasis on a girl's "purity" than a boy's, and I think that's sad.
pH, If I was a girl I'd be doing everything I could as far as protecting myself against pregnancy, and if the guy does some stuff too, bonus. The nature of human biology means that the female deals with a whole lot of stuff concerning pregnancy, while the male has to deal with nothing (biologically).
It has nothing to do with purity or anything like that, honestly I don't know what that sentence has to do with your first one. Perhaps you can elaborate? (Please note that I'm not actually supporting use of IUDs at all.)
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, I got interrupted by work earlier so the start of this post is from 2 or so hours ago...
-- The 13 yr old expects to be taken care of by the gov't because her mother was. And her mother before her.
At some point a family was broken up because the mother could get along just fine without the dad. So now 20 yr olds have 3 kids by 3 different dads. And those kids will grow up to mother/father more children who will grow up in a family made up of a mother, the government and 6 children, also by different fathers.
In the old days kids didn't fool around as much because there was a healthy dose shame attached to it. And there was shame attached to it because if she got pregnant, he would have to marry her and take care of their baby. These days, she can have the government take care of her and her baby or just plain kill it. He doesn't care. He's already dumped her and is busy impregnating another girl.
posted
pH, what exactly is wrong with IUDs? I mean, sure not everyone likes them, and sure, they don't work for everyone (for example, I'm pretty sure that my second is in the process of working its way out. That's it for me!) But for the majority of women, they're safe, effective, and cause little to no discomfort after the initial insertion-- and last up to 10 years. Of course no one should be forced, but it's a good option for many.
posted
I'm not saying I have a problem with IUDs. I have a problem with IUDs in 13-year-old girls (forced IUDs). I was also under the impression that most doctors would not insert an IUD unless the woman had already given birth once.
And BlackBlade, my point is that I think that both genders should be EQUALLY responsible for preventing pregnancy, and I feel that far too much of the burden is placed on the female, just as I feel that far too much of the pressure not to have sex is placed on the female instead of being equally distributed between the genders.
posted
Belle, your posts reminded me that when I was a teenager a young male in the extended family got married on rather short notice and his wife had a baby soon after. His mom told my dad that he should talk to his daughters, since if [the bride] had been on the pill this never would have happened.
Dad's response was that if her son had kept his pants zipped it wouldn't have happened.
Which is to say, I agree with your annoyance.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: And BlackBlade, my point is that I think that both genders should be EQUALLY responsible for preventing pregnancy, and I feel that far too much of the burden is placed on the female, just as I feel that far too much of the pressure not to have sex is placed on the female instead of being equally distributed between the genders.
I'm not sure if you meant Blackblade or me, but I'll respond.
I absolutely agree that any pressure as far as 'remaining pure' goes should be equally distributed between the sexes. Both genders are responsible and should be equally responsible to prevent pregnancy.
However, I kind of view the whole situation like riding my motorcycle out on the road. There are some inherent risks associated with that, but I do it anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks for me. If the other drivers are responsible in doing what they're supposed to, and if I do what I'm supposed to, then no one gets in an accident. However, if the driver for a 4500 lb SUV is irresponsible, then I'm the one that ends up hurt or dead. Pointing figures saying that it was they other guys fault doesn't help me. Thus it behoves me to take every precaution I can, from driving defensively to wearing all my gear, uncomfortable though it may be.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people have either religious or philosophical objections to the IUD's. I may be wrong here, so please correct me if I am, but my understanding is that they do not prevent fertilization, rather they prevent implantation. So for someone who believes life begins at the moment sperm meets egg, then IUD's could be seen as a form of abortion.
Now, I'm not passing judgment myself, I'm just saying that's how some people view it, or at least that's how some people have explained their objections to IUD's to me.
Also, I have an aunt who received a severe pelvic infection due to an IUD insertion that resulted in her becoming infertile later in life. I'm assuming they are better now, and that happens less frequently (we're talking decades ago that this happened) but the possibility is still there when you have a foreign object inside the body.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT: Maybe I should go out and buy a male body instead of this female one that's likely to get run-over, huh?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly, Pix. It's your own fault for having a uterus. Since men do not have uteri, they don't need to be as responsible as you. Shame on your father for denying you a Y chromosome!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
