posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . . .
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Shame on your father for denying you a Y chromosome!
