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.
I'm very dubious regarding the merits of such a system, but what do you all think?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
It's the Bush-Blair pre-emptive foreign affairs doctrine, brought to bear on the family, home, and individual.
Kind of interesting that the foreign-affairs version is justified as being essential to defense of our 'free society.'
Well, once we no longer have a free society to defend, maybe we can scale back the defense budget.
I don't know. I suppose I am overreacting.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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).
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think I'd be fine with someone doing this to help the kids born into these difficult circumstances.
But the "defense" nature of it makes me think this will only do more harm than good.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't know what's more appalling... the proposal or the fact no one seems to be particularly appalled about it...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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 by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why is it a bad idea:
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?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
sounds like a touch of the old Ultraviolence eh? make everyone watch Clockwork Orange and become rehabilitated? =p
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I would headline this thus:
Blair: Tar-baby Sasses You Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Still.. I hate the government involved in anything. Though if local school districts decided to teach the benefits I wouldn't be opposed.
Pix
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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...
Pix
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ok. Here is the plans.
A-- 1) Invent an Anti-Viagra.
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."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
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.
"It's Sapiens to be homo!"
-pH
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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?
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Samarkand about the vacectomies. They are sometimes reversable, but not always. Forced sterilization is a very bad idea to me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
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.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
I hope I said it more clearly this time...
Pix
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
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.
Just sayin'.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, vasectomies would be a HUGE boon for teenage boys.
"What are you worrying about, baby, I'm safe, I ain't gonna get you pregnant, I'm fixed, baby. Fixed."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
pH and DKW, thanks guys. That was my original, too subtle, point with the vasectomies vs IUDs.
I still think the little snip is the better way to go though.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I did mean you, Bao. Sorry. I saw a B and an A, and my finance-frazzled brain filled in the rest.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BQT: Maybe I should go out and buy a male body instead of this female one that's likely to get run-over, huh?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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!
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Why do people do that? Instead of address the point I brought up, just use sarcasm, that's pleasant.
If you thought about my point, it also applies to males. If I were single and promiscuous right now, I'd absolutely take my own advice: use a condom or get snipped. Why would I want to be responsible for both a child and 18 years of monthly payments because she lied about or forgot to take the pill? If the girl was even more of a stranger, why risk an STD by not using a condom?
Playing the oppressed women gender card really doesn't impress me- constructively dealing with reality does.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Belle, IUDs prevent fertilization AND implantation. In some cases (depending on the type of IUD) they also prevent ovulation.
And while I agree that it should be on both boys and girls to 1) not have sex and 2) if they do, not get pregnant, I would point out that much of the "stuff" I see on preventing pregnancy and safe sex emphasizes that whether or not the girl is using another form of birth control, a condom should be used a) to be doubly sure and b) to prevent the spread of STDs.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I agree that the onus has historically been on women to "handle" pregnancy, whether that meant preventing it, or terminating it, or arranging for adoption, or raising the child. And most research on preventing pregnancy has been on the female side . . . so it sucks, but if the objective is to prevent or limit pregnancy, currently the best way to do so is to address the female side of the equation. I'm not saying is SHOULD be that way, it just regrettably IS that way.
Are there other long-term options besides an IUD? I know that work is being done on another generation of hormone-producing implants . . . ones that hopefully don't do all the scary stuff the old ones did . . .
Also, I would love love to see free vasectomies and tube ligations for anyone over the age of 18 who wants them. However, I would want some kind of waiting period/ informational session to make sure people really got the YOU MAY NEVER HAVE CHILDREN message. I definitely personally don't believe that people are under any obligation to reproduce, but I don't want anyone to regret such a decision later.
So yeah, I like vasectomies, but if you're going to mandate something, I don't think forcing minors to undergo a procedure that may render them permanently impotent is a good idea . . .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:At some point a family was broken up because the mother could get along just fine without the dad.
I think there are other reasons for families breaking up.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:but if the objective is to prevent or limit pregnancy, currently the best way to do so is to address the female side of the equation.
Personally, I think it'd be really useful to try to teach boys that promiscuous, unprotected sex is not okay. No one seems to do that.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:So yeah, I like vasectomies, but if you're going to mandate something, I don't think forcing minors to undergo a procedure that may render them permanently impotent is a good idea . . .
Agreed!
And another reason I don't think anything should be mandated, period.
I think the best thing would be to put a little shame back into having a baby out of wedlock. It worked for a long time-- it wasn't non-existant, but it promoted more restraint. Now, I'm not saying we should shun women who have babies out of wedlock, or force them to get married, but expressing extreme disappointment and strongly encouraging marriage or giving the baby up for adoption might make some of their younger sisters and friends think twice about getting pregnant.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
kq, how do they prevent ovulation? I really wasn't aware they did, do they also secrete some hormone that suppresses ovulation? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how they affect release of an egg from the ovary when it's by definition a device inside the uterus?
Note I'm not questioning you, I'm sure your information is more complete and up to date than mine (I haven't needed to worry about contraception for almost six years, having had a hysterectomy) but I didn't know they suppressed ovulation. I'm curious.
quote:Personally, I think it'd be really useful to try to teach boys that promiscuous, unprotected sex is not okay. No one seems to do that.
It's done, but not to the extent that it is for girls. I can tell you in my household, we most definitely will stress it as much with our son as with my daughters. My son's still a bit young for the "talk" in detail, but we expect to teach him the same thing we do our girls.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think some IUDs release hormones.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:do they also secrete some hormone that suppresses ovulation?
Ah. Thank you. I was not aware.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: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.
word ___
As an aside, I'm not against state sponsored nagging, as long as we don't tie negative consequences to the parent's decision. The whole business is at least as touchy as faith-based initiatives, but we worked something out for those initiatives, so maybe we can work something out with respect to poor parenting. ________
The most interesting issue this raises for me is that Blair's approach assumes that the want of character in the violent criminal class is more pernicious than the white collar louts we spit out, the Ken Lays and George Bushes.
The latter people interest me more because they are the ones who actual metriculate through our education system and American institutions, avoid jail and end being bigger menaces to society, in my estimation.
We are comfortable lecuring Bumshequa, the pregnant crack-head from the block, but I wish we got serious at sitting a young George Herbert and Barbara Bush down and somehow pre-empting them from raising a war-mongering rube who spent his first thirty years as an unabashed drunk. I'm not sure who is a bigger menace to society, the crack baby or the silver-spooned jackass, but a look at the Bush daughters makes me think that their poor parenting was systemic, and not a one generation fluke.
[ September 01, 2006, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Teenagers don't need to have internal exams unless they are sexually active or have symptoms of some sort of reproductive-system related disorder.
The exam and insertion of the IUD would definitely be uncomfortable, at that age likely painful, definitely embarrassing, and possibly outright traumatic. Adult women get used to the exam, but it's not something I'd put a young girl through without a darn good reason. And "50% of your peers are sleeping around" isn't good enough for me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, Belle, I was referring to Mirena, which releases a hormone that supresses ovulation. Another great thing is that sometimes when you use Mirena, you don't have to have a period at all! Alas, I can't use it.
The kind I have, ParaGard, is a copper IUD. Copper IUDs work by preventing fertilization and/or implantation.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: . . . but a look at the Bush daughters makes me think that their poor parenting was systemic, and not a one generation fluke.
Yeah.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
*inserts midichlorian joke here and gets the frack out*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
My sister was looking into IUDs recently. In Washington State, they only give them to married women becuase if you get an STD, it tends to be worse. Women with IUDs who get an STD are more likely to become sterile.
At least with a botched vasectomy reversal the guy can still reproduce in-vitro. If the womb gets messed up, the only option is adoption. If we were serious about it (which I hope we never are, even if it is fun to talk about) I'd side with the standardized vasectomy folks.
As for Blair's reasoning for targeting poor families, I'd say it's the way to get the most bang for your buck. Yeah, Enron was a disaster of epic proportions. But we know Enron's name because it was rare. What's the name of the kid in your town who grew up poor and neglected who committed an assortment of petty crimes before getting busted for something major? At least here in Tally, we have more than one. In Crystal River, I knew the kid killed in our one and only drive by shooting. I remember three killed in a week that way last year in Tally.
White collar crime is just as bad as any other kind. But the very fact that they blend in and work the system makes that kind of criminal almost impossible to find until they're already guilty. Do we really want to spend a lot of cash looking for them?
Meanwhile, we know every child poor and neglected is at risk. Not all of them will become criminals. Some will live virtuous lives, some will move up in the world and become middle class, some will vow to do better by their kids. But many will be left behind by their own inertia. If we know we can make a difference by getting them decent food and some attention, doesn't it make more sense to go for the easy fix? Why not make the people who know the least about being good parents take a class to find out how it should be?
No one gets it perfect, but most of us don't raise gang members, either. Who knows? They might learn something.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Parenting really isn't a standardized thing, though, and if the state steps in, it will likely attempt to treat children in a more standardized manner. Think about how your parents raised you. Likely, it was not entirely normal, "average" good parenting. I know that my parents did all kinds of things that most who give parenting advice would probably say was an absolutely horrible idea. I just don't know that the state should be too much more involved, considering that it's relatively inflexible in considering the needs of each child or situation. If that makes any sense.
-pH
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Oh, I definitely understand you, pH. The thought of an Equilibrium world where the government tells you exactly how to raise your children is terrifying. I suppose I'm advocating the government distributing parental guidelines to folks who really don't have any of their own.
With a lot of the white trash back home, there was no parental example. Mom left the kids alone in the trailer to fend for themselves while she was at the bar. Even when they took the kids down to the levee with them, the parents sat around drinking while the kids ran wild.
The SEDs my mom teaches are predominantly poor white boys. Most of the time, when she gets out the birthday banner and makes a fuss over them, she's the only one who's made their birthday special. Half of them don't eat except for the free lunches at school.
I'm not talking about parents who do the best they can with limited resources and their own hangups. I'm talking about the parents who flat out don't know what to do with a kid and are too selfish or lazy to bother finding out. If we at least give them the basics of how parents are supposed to behave, maybe some of them will get it. And if we can save even a small percentage of kids from abuse and neglect, saving society from their crime and debauchery along the way, isn't that a worthy goal?
Right now, at least in Florida, we do almost nothing to help children. I'm of the opinion that any change has to be better than what we have now. If England's in the same boat, why not give it a try?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think what those people need is a good safety net, plus an expectation that they become self-sufficient, role models of how to do that, a lot of personal love and caring from someone, or preferably from various people in a strong healthy community, lessons on parenting, on family happiness, and personal responsibility, financial responsibility, and the knowledge that they are worthy and good, and they shouldn't throw their lives away. They need a whole lot, in other words. Plus the idea of forcing it is horrible! Agency matters more than any of those things they're trying to prevent by forcing people.
Anyway, that's sort of the program my church has for new converts, of whatever age, income bracket, or background. It's staffed by volunteer workers, and falls far short of its ideals in many cases, but that's sort of the whole idea. We all need those things. We all have a lot to learn about being good parents and good human beings, too. And, of course, we learn more by trying to teach others than we do by trying to learn ourselves. So it works, for the longtime members as well as the converts, by fits and starts.
[ September 02, 2006, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
When we begin to legislate different rule sets for people based on socio-economic differences under the guise of making a safer society for "the normal" people, we cease to be a free society.
To suggest otherwise is madness.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Hopefully, it would be a single set of rules that all parents should follow. If you can perform the minimum parenting functions, you're on your own unless you specifically request help. If you are unable to perform some minimum functions, or don't know how, help would be provided.
At least, I think if it were structured that way, it would have a greater chance of actually helping, and a lower probability of forcing parents to behave the way the government wants them to.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Hopefully, it would be a single set of rules that all parents should follow. If you can perform the minimum parenting functions, you're on your own unless you specifically request help. If you are unable to perform some minimum functions, or don't know how, help would be provided.
Well, that's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the "necessity" for the Government of a free society to step in and identify potential problem humans using socio-economic factors, and then to set up systems to prevent those humans from ever becoming problems.
In a free society, people will always make bad choices. There is no way to legislate Utopia.
It's a dark road, MightyCow.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hear you TL, and I agree that we must tread carefully. Government controlled Utopia wouldn't be a Utopia that I would want to live in.
The opposite approach doesn't seem much better though. What happens when we just watch, or worse look away while large segments of the population grow up in an environment where drugs and violence are the norm, where teen pregnancy is almost expected, and where drug dealers are celebrities?
It's not right to force people into some mythical "right" behavior. I don't think it's wrong for a society to try and take care of itself, both helping its most neglected members and working to insure its health on the whole.
This may not be the best way to do it, but I can see the need to take action. I'd prefer it if there were better proposals, as this one does worry me.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:What happens when we just watch, or worse look away while large segments of the population grow up in an environment where drugs and violence are the norm, where teen pregnancy is almost expected, and where drug dealers are celebrities?
We keep our free agency as human beings, is what happens. And we deal with the results the best way we can.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Self-sufficiency is over-rated, look at Trumph or Paris Hilton, can any amount of money can make those people less monsterous.
At best, self-sufficiency should be a felicitous by-product of virtuous action, but to be honest, the most interesting, morally attractive young people I know aren't self-sufficient, they are on generously funded internships or grants doing inspired-- albeit non/barely remunerative-- work.
_____
Edit: There is a MLK sermon or letter about the essential mutuality of this world on earth. It's a sentiment shared by better political philosophers, in my estimation. Self-sufficency vs. essential mutuality is an uneasy equalibrium. The problem is drudge work. Someone has to do it, and try as we might pretend, there isn't much in the way of dignity in it. Historically, self-sufficiency is popular when the society is stratified to the extent that the people preaching self-sufficiency don't have to pick fruit.
[ September 02, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
TL, don't you think it's possible for us to help people without taking away their free agency? I agree with you, that it's important not to make slaves out of people in order to "help" them, not to force choices upon them, but aren't we doing exactly that if we withhold choices?
If a child has little or no opportunity to get a good education, their free agency is quite limited compared to another child who attends a good school and can look forward to college.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There's a difference between saying "all children should have equal access to education" and saying "because you're poor, you shouldn't have a child."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kq,
I'm not big on equal access. It seems that we are still setting the kid up for failure. I simply believe that the education that the best parents would offer their children is the education we should offer every child. Trying for anything less is a piss poor substitution.
Take Ela and husband. Their kids post here. I like them. I think that they did well by the kids. In a more perfect world, Ela would sit down with every would be parent and design a program, and also serve in the way of an AA sponsor in times of trouble. Ela and hubby could be on a rotating schedule with Kasie H's parents.
As to equal access:
Equal access doesn't mean much when everything else is unequal. Equal access doesn't even mean much when everything is equal, in those cases, we are simply asking kids to fight it out, and I'm not sure how that is a good thing. If we are going to seek to educate every young citizen in this nation, we should seek to educate every young citizen in this nation, without regard to equalities or inequalities.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But not every education works for every child...
That's not what I was saying, though. I was responding specifically to
quote:If a child has little or no opportunity to get a good education, their free agency is quite limited compared to another child who attends a good school and can look forward to college.
The state of American schools is not the issue here.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Do you really thing innercity street gangs are unique to the UK?
No, please read what I wrote again. But I think there are a certain set of circumstances in the UK that make the problem different to the street gangs in the US.
I do not believe that offering free contraception will solve the problem.
Nor do I believe that the opportunity to get a post-education is, at the moment, a major problem in the UK. These people basically need to finish school, and not only their GCSEs, but to have the interest in getting their A levels.
Personally, I believe that these people in England need examples of the ability to improve. To leave the council housing and whatever they have been doing and move onwards.
I think the streaming of schools in England may partially help to exacerbate these problems. If your high school, (attended by 11 year olds upwards), is full of people who have no interest in education, it doesn't matter how good the school is; there is no other example but to essentially fail out of education. In a mixed school where a good number of students attend university the example is there to keep working and finish school.
quote:I think the best thing would be to put a little shame back into having a baby out of wedlock.
I do not think marriage would solve the problem. I think the shame, if it is necessary, should be focused on ignorance, aggression and lack of care and less upon your legal state.
Posted by Kenif (Member # 9629) on :
I've seen a number of cases (first-hand) of clearly unfit parents do a lot of damage to their children (both physical and emotional).
In Britain, there is also a huge problem with people purposely not getting jobs and living off state benefits. In many cases, people doing this have children, knowing that doing so will give them more benefits. In many of these families, the children are not given what many would see as a good upbringing and can grow up to be as Blair says "A menace to society"
I'm not sure if Blair's proposal is the way forward, but there is a problem in the UK with increasing "anti-social" behaviour.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm as curious as anyone as to what happens when the children of servants and laborers would rather be jobless than be servants or laborers. They haven't the education or connections to be members of the cushy class, but are too proud to piss their lives away like their parents. It's a sticky wicket.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: There's a difference between saying "all children should have equal access to education" and saying "because you're poor, you shouldn't have a child."
Do people have an inherent right to have children? What if they will abuse or endanger the child? Does a woman have a right to have unlimited children without the means to support any of them, financially, emotionally, or otherwise? Does a woman addicted to crack have a right to have children? A woman who drinks and takes drugs throughout the pregnancy?
I'm not sure myself. I'm interested in other people's feelings on the subject.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
A right, yes, even if what they are doing is wrong. No matter who you are and what you do, *someone* will think you are unfit to have children. Now, in the case of the crack addict using her way through pregnancy, you get a lot more consensus that she's unfit;however, no one can say what part her child or children have to play in the world.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
See, I see that sense of parenting as a right as something of a problem. I'm all for staying out of my neighbor's business as much as possible. I read too much Niven to trust the government not to grow out of control, especially on reproductive issues.
At the same time, we treat children like property in America. Your biological parents have a right to keep you in their possession. DCF brags on its adoption page that most children are returned to their families and not available for adoption.
Think about that a moment. People treat their kids badly enough that they have to be removed by the state, and their children are later given back to them. Personally, I find that frightening. Cause I've seen what the parents are doing that doesn't warrent the kids' removal. I can't imagine what you have to do to get them taken from you.
Forcing someone to not have children is intrusive. But investigating a parent for abuse is also intrusive. If Blair's considering things like mandatory parenting classes or nutition classes, it would seem to be a less intrusive compromise between the two. And it would be far kinder to the children involved.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Do people have an inherent right to have children?
Yes.
And we as a society have the right to make laws that determine what defines abuse or neglect and should constitute grounds for removing the child and letting someone else raise her.
After the child is born and/or the parent has already shown that s/he will be an unfit parent (for example, mothers who use drugs while pregnant, or parents who are severely mentally ill, resulting in multiple hospitalizations because they are a danger to others, unable to function in day to day life, and refuse treatment.)
Sometimes children are taken from their parents because of drug use. Drug users can change. They can get clean, get a job, hold it. I would be all for returning the child in those circumstances. I can think of multiple other circumstances in which I would be thrilled that a child was now able to go back to his natural parents.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Think about that a moment. People treat their kids badly enough that they have to be removed by the state, and their children are later given back to them. Personally, I find that frightening. Cause I've seen what the parents are doing that doesn't warrent the kids' removal. I can't imagine what you have to do to get them taken from you.
If there was no prospect of returning children to their parents after removal, or if such return were rare, then the threshold of abuse or neglect authorizing removal would be made even more severe, and the process for initial removal even more difficult.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hopefully in order to put this particular part of the argument to rest:
Forced vasectomies for young guys is the most ridiculous thing I've heard here, most especially if you're aiming it at the poor or underpriviledged. Advocates might not realize it, but they are basically advocating for Eugenics.
First of all, any and every woman on this board who argues that women should have control over their own bodies I would expect to be on the side of men here. If we're going to allow forcing men to have vasectomies at ANY age, then there should be a government right to FORCE any sort of birth control surgeries on women that they want.
Secondly, getting past the moral issues of how barbaric that is, is it cost effective? Vasectomies aren't free, at least not in the United States. Are taxpayers going to fund the snipping of American youth?
Thirdly, the process is NOT automatically reversible. A percentage of those are able to reverse the process, but the long you wait, the harder it is. So what if all 12 year old boys were snipped, and weren't allowed to reverse it for almost a decade? It's ridiculous to force sterilization on a percentage of the population, to say nothing of the possible health effects on boys who've barely hit puberty.
Fourth: Cost. Reversing the process costs thousands of dollars, and then what if it fails? In vitro fertilization costs tens of thousands of dollars. Is the government going to be responsible for the fertility of the American people? This is especially ridiculous for the poor, considering even lower middle class families couldn't afford the surgery, to say nothing of how a poor family is going to come up with two or three times their yearly salary in order to pay for a procedure that may or may not work. You're talking about declaring war on the poor by outbreeding them.
It's not a problem that surgery can solve, it's a SOCIAL problem. Fathers need to start teaching their boys not to be responsible MEN, not irresponsible boys. That doesn't mean the onus is OFF of women to be responsible. It should be equally stressed on both sides, and that is the fault of parents. It isn't the government's, or school's jobs to teach kids not to have sex, or how to have sex, or how to do it safely. It's up to parents. It's up to a responsible society to teach kids that waiting to have sex is smarter, but if you're going to shirk that and do it anyway, AT LEAST be responsible about it when you do it.
And I've never met a 13 year old that actively plans to get pregnant in order to get a government check. Quite frankly it sounds ludicrous.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: 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!
-pH
that's not what BQT is saying (i think...) he's just saying what many teenage girls don't realize: that if you don't take care of yourself, no one else will. you have to be the one who makes sure the guys' wearing a condom, you have to make sure you've taken the pill. because the guy will leave, and you'll be stuck with hiv and a baby. at that stage, it doesn't matter who takes the blame because you have to deal with the consequences. of course it's guys' responsibilty to make sure they're having safe sex. but if i get pregnant at 16, i know i won't have anyone to blame but myself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I find the 'got herpes' ad at the bottom of the page absolutely hilarious.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The ad on my page invites me to get my MA in human behavior.
-pH
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I get the "Are you a slacker mom? Click here to find out."
Er... No, but isn't that an oxymoron? If I'm slacking, I ain't clicking on demand.
Anyway, never mind. Get back to your rantings, people!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Shame on your father for denying you a Y chromosome!![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)