[wataru]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

My British friends beg to differ. Instead of Britain and Continent, they actually used Britain and Europe

Japan does that too with Asia. Everyone likes to think they're special.

[Chuckit]

Ironically, America does the opposite.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Ironically, America does the opposite.

Well, it's not like we're an island and can try to claim we're seperated from North America...

[IceEnclosure]

this is a funny thread containing some witty posts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wataru

Japan does that too with Asia. Everyone likes to think they're special.

I know. Nobody else can understand them … they believe

[Hawkeye_a]

Meh im sure Darwin-ism will kick in soon enough.

[vexborg]

Originally Posted by KeyLimePi

I think you guys are being a little harsh. It's not like she planned this pregnancy. She was drunk, fer chrissakes!

Yeah, but she's also 11!

<SARCASM>At least now she doesn't have to start thinking about working until her child is ready for school - until then the government is going to pay it all. Including her ciggies! Good for her. </SARCASM>

WTF! Are they thinking!?

[Doofy]

Nothing to see here. This kind of thing is getting quite regular - just a result of having had the most corrupt, moral-free, idiotic government in power for the last nine years.

[Jan Van Boghout]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nothing to see here. This kind of thing is getting quite regular - just a result of having had the most corrupt, moral-free, idiotic government in power for the last nine years.

Because a good government monitors all activities of every 11-year old 24/7 and makes sure they don't do anything unexpected? When did raising children stop being the parents' responsibility?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Jan Van Boghout

Because a good government monitors all activities of every 11-year old 24/7 and makes sure they don't do anything unexpected? When did raising children stop being the parents' responsibility?

About nine years ago.

Due to this government, there is now no way to effectively punish your kids when they do wrong. Can't slap 'em, can't shout at 'em, can't send 'em to their room. Or else Big Brother comes down and has you for some form of cruelty.

Due to this government, under-age kids who're pregnant can now get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.

The power to raise your kids properly has been taken away from parents, simple as that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nothing to see here. This kind of thing is getting quite regular - just a result of having had the most corrupt, moral-free, idiotic government in power for the last nine years.

This is not a responsibility of the government, it's a responsibility of the parents to teach their kids these values.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

This is not a responsibility of the government, it's a responsibility of the parents to teach their kids these values.

Tell that to the government.

I agree with your statement. However, see my post above. For the last nine years this government has been undermining parents' rights in every way possible.

Take the abortion example above. Did you read it? Kids can now have abortions without their parents knowing about it. How does that tally with parental responsibility? Parents say "don't get pregnant"... ...kid thinks "oh, I can get an abortion without them knowing about it. Easy".

But that's not the whole story. It gets better. Schools now can't put a plaster (band-aid) on a kid - they have to get one of the parents to come and do it. Think about that - a school can't put a plaster on a grazed knee but the state can organise a secret abortion for the kid. The whole system has become seriously screwed up (intentionally, by the government).

Let's take another example. A parent can now go to prison if their child plays truant. However, the parent no longer has any way of making the child go to school because there's nothing they can do to the kid as a punishment for disobedience. How does that work then?

Why's it happening? So the state can extend control over all aspects of people's lives. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, Blair is using it as an instruction manual. You might want to remember Winston Smith's neighbours in relation to this topic.

[Jan Van Boghout]

Originally Posted by Doofy

About nine years ago.

Due to this government, there is now no way to effectively punish your kids when they do wrong. Can't slap 'em, can't shout at 'em, can't send 'em to their room. Or else Big Brother comes down and has you for some form of cruelty.

Due to this government, under-age kids who're pregnant can now get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.

The power to raise your kids properly has been taken away from parents, simple as that.

Uhm, if the only way to keep your kids in line is beating them, you're a lousy parent in the first place. Big Brother is not going to come after you because your kid isn't allowed to go to a party, give me a break.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Jan Van Boghout

Uhm, if the only way to keep your kids in line is beating them, you're a lousy parent in the first place.

And you're the kind of fool who causes this problem in the first place.
Did I say "beating"? No, I said "slapping". The fools who can't differentiate between the two are the same fools who prop up this government.

When you've had first-hand experience of the problems the UK faces with its kids today, let me know. We listened to the likes of you for the last nine years, we got this.

Originally Posted by Jan Van Boghout

Big Brother is not going to come after you because your kid isn't allowed to go to a party, give me a break.

How are you going to stop your kid from going to the party? Go on, tell me how you're going to stop her.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy

How are you going to stop your kid from going to the party?

Well, the parents have the right to determine the stay (in German called "Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht"). So they say "you stay at home" and the kids stay at home. Easy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Well, the parents have the right to determine the stay (in German called "Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht"). So they say "you stay at home" and the kids stay at home. Easy.

Riiiight... ...so you never once went out without your parents' permission.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Riiiight... ...so you never once went out without your parents' permission.

From the sound of things I don't think TETENAL has ever raised any kids.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Tell that to the government.

I don't see the connection to this specific case. It's clearly negligence of the parent and has nothing to do with the government taking up responsibilities of parents.

Her mother (a father isn't mentioned in the Shoutwire article) failed to supervise her daughter properly and apparently even supports her decisions and habits.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I agree with your statement. However, see my post above. For the last nine years this government has been undermining parents' rights in every way possible.

You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you claim that the government has too much influence on the upbringing of children, but on the other hand you say that the mother is to blame.

Whereas each of the statements separately may (or may not) be true, there is no connection between the two of them.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Take the abortion example above. Did you read it? Kids can now have abortions without their parents knowing about it. How does that tally with parental responsibility? Parents say "don't get pregnant"... ...kid thinks "oh, I can get an abortion without them knowing about it. Easy".

Wait, this is an entirely different topic. You have two conflicting interests here: (i) the privacy of the patient and (ii) the rights of the parents. However, this topic, I believe has been discussed already (I remember having a discussion about this specific aspect of British law) and it has nothing to do with the current case. So I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Why's it happening? So the state can extend control over all aspects of people's lives. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, Blair is using it as an instruction manual. You might want to remember Winston Smith's neighbours in relation to this topic.

I don't think this trend is new nor is it an invention by Blair or his party. GB was one of the first countries with very extensive video surveillance, for instance. My conjecture is that this is connected to the lack of a written constitution, but again, this is off-topic.

[ghporter]

Being fertile and being ready to bear a child are two radically different things. An 11 or 12 year old has not finished growing, and she will compete with her fetus for minerals like calcium and iron. Her immune system is not mature, so any antibodies she might pass through the placenta will be minimal at best. And her brain's frontal cortex, the part that gives adults the ability to make reasoned decisions and avoid rash actions won't finish maturing until she's about 22-way too late for her and the baby she'll have.

When my wife worked in the newborn nursery at the county hospital here, she saw 13 and 14 year old first time mothers, and 14 and 15 year old second time mothers. They were all completely stupid for their choices, and very few of them had any apparent parenting at all. They also were generally at risk for such things as child abuse, child malnutrition, and future child truancy. Basically these kids were not mature enough to manage themselves, and their babies had an even worse future in store for them. This is BAD.

[Monique]

Plus the fact, she had to go through morning sickness, hormones problems and plus a delivery, God knows what this is going to do her uterus. It is not always like in never never land deliveries can be very complicated for the mother and damaging. If she is even more unlucky, she might have a c-section which will complicate things a lot more for her and her physical future.

And I agree with ghporter for the rest of the problems the baby will encounter.

[OreoCookie]

@ghporter
I totally agree that this is essentially a problem of poverty and not directly linked to politics. There has been a rise of teenage pregnancies in Germany as well and there is a strong correlation to poverty and the economic development.

My cousin became a father for this very reason: his ex girlfriend intentionally stopped taking her pill (which was apparently their contraceptive of choice) without telling him and got pregnant. The reason was that she hasn't finished any sort of education and doesn't know what to do with her life. But what she did know was that my uncle had money and that her future was secured when she found out that she was indeed pregnant. (Coincidentally, she also took most of the furniture with her when she moved out.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't see the connection to this specific case. It's clearly negligence of the parent and has nothing to do with the government taking up responsibilities of parents.

Her mother (a father isn't mentioned in the Shoutwire article) failed to supervise her daughter properly and apparently even supports her decisions and habits.

No, you miss the point. The government has created the circumstances in which this type of thing can easily happen. It's done this by essentially removing parents' rights to bring up their child properly.

If you believe otherwise, tell me how you would legally (in the UK) stop your 11-year-old daughter from going to that party and bumping the youths there.

And like I said - this is nothing really unusual in modern Britain (you think that we're laughing at Vicky Pollard from Little Britain because it's not true?), so pointing to this specific case and disregarding the thousands of others is essentially burying your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you claim that the government has too much influence on the upbringing of children, but on the other hand you say that the mother is to blame.

No. What I said was that I agree with your assertion that it should be nothing to do with the government. However, our present government makes it a point to interfere in people's lives as much as possible, especially with regard to the upbringing of kids - therefore whatever should be the case is actually not reality.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Whereas each of the statements separately may (or may not) be true, there is no connection between the two of them.

No. You're completely missing the point. Our government is so far into people's lives that it has everything to do with them. Again, tell me how you'd stop your 11-yo daughter from going to that party.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Wait, this is an entirely different topic. You have two conflicting interests here: (i) the privacy of the patient and (ii) the rights of the parents. However, this topic, I believe has been discussed already (I remember having a discussion about this specific aspect of British law) and it has nothing to do with the current case. So I'll leave it at that.

Wrong - it's not a different topic at all. It all links to rights and responsibilities of the parent and the relationship of the state to those responsibilities. The current UK government is doing everything in its power (both overtly and covertly) to remove parents from the equation completely. Now, you may think I've read Brave New World or Anthem one too many times, however I can assure you that slowly but surely this process is happening right now in real life.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think this trend is new nor is it an invention by Blair or his party. GB was one of the first countries with very extensive video surveillance, for instance. My conjecture is that this is connected to the lack of a written constitution, but again, this is off-topic.

The fact that you mention video surveillance is telling. It says that you're looking at this purely on the surface. There's very much more going on behind the scenes, trust me on that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

@ghporter
I totally agree that this is essentially a problem of poverty and not directly linked to politics. There has been a rise of teenage pregnancies in Germany as well and there is a strong correlation to poverty and the economic development.

Poverty and economic development are, of course, absolutely nothing to do with politics.

OH, and BTW, it's nothing to do with poverty*. It's to do with how a parent is allowed to bring up their child (i.e. government interference with the family) and general social acceptance of the situation.

* Girl I know is a granny at 35. She owns a horse racing team full of purebred Arabians, drives an SL500, etc., etc..

[Monique]

Instead of being the friend of an 11 years old, be the parent; tell her no, lock her in her room, take away things that is important to her, new clothes, computer, phone, access to friends, listen to her conversations, anything and everything to stop the next 11 years old from getting pregnant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, you miss the point. The government has created the circumstances in which this type of thing can easily happen. It's done this by essentially removing parents' rights to bring up their child properly.

No, I don't agree that the government is to blame here. Normal regulatory mechanisms that might be an issue for regular parents don't work here anyway.

A law that says you (as a parent) can't physically force your kid to school, but might go to jail for not making sure they do is not an issue for a parent that doesn't care.

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you believe otherwise, tell me how you would legally (in the UK) stop your 11-year-old daughter from going to that party and bumping the youths there.

Since I am not versed in British law, I cannot tell you how I could legally stop my daughter from doing that. But my daughter wouldn't be a drinking chain smoker when she's 11 years old anyway. Why? It's what I was taught in my family. My parents have a very good bond to my brother, my sister and me and taught us things like trust and respect. Sure, there are always problems and we certainly were no angels. But neither one of us (nor our friends) were spending their time at this age drinking and having sex.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And like I said - this is nothing really unusual in modern Britain (you think that we're laughing at Vicky Pollard from Little Britain because it's not true?), so pointing to this specific case and disregarding the thousands of others is essentially burying your head in the sand.

We're discussing one specific case here. And if anything one of the problems is that poor parents rely on the government too much instead of parenting by themselves (e. g. they expect that schools will do it for them for instance).

So again, the problem is not the government meddling into your affairs, the problems are (i) poverty and (ii) shifting responsibility of the parents to the government by parents.
[QUOTE=Doofy]No. What I said was that I agree with your assertion that it should be nothing to do with the government. However, our present government makes it a point to interfere in people's lives as much as possible, especially with regard to the upbringing of kids - therefore whatever should be the case is actually not reality.
See above why this is the case. My parents were always involved in our schools (e. g. serving as a representative for the parents, donating equipment, spending hours at school board meetings) and made sure that all three of us had a good education. The excuse that it's the governments fault is a perpetuation of the thing you are accusing the government of: shifting responsibility away from yourself.

It's always easier to blame someone else. When it comes to my family, we were taught to take on responsibilities ourselves.

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. You're completely missing the point. Our government is so far into people's lives that it has everything to do with them. Again, tell me how you'd stop your 11-yo daughter from going to that party.

See, again, the two questions have nothing in common. Governments vs. what would you do.

I'm not missing the point at all. You're mixing two different discussions here. The law will never stop my daughter from going or do you think kids are stupid? Even if you'd lock them in their room, my uncle always used to sneak out the window. Only a proper upbringing by the parents will do the trick.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wrong - it's not a different topic at all. It all links to rights and responsibilities of the parent and the relationship of the state to those responsibilities. The current UK government is doing everything in its power (both overtly and covertly) to remove parents from the equation completely. Now, you may think I've read Brave New World or Anthem one too many times, however I can assure you that slowly but surely this process is happening right now in real life.

Nope. See above, it's poverty and lack of parents taking up their responsibilities. The government cannot take something away that these parents have never really claimed for themselves.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Nope. See above, it's poverty and lack of parents taking up their responsibilities. The government cannot take something away that these parents have never really claimed for themselves.

Wrong. Which bit of "the government can arrange for your underage daughter to have an abortion without you even knowing she was pregnant" are you not understanding?

If you don't know that there's a problem, how can you take responsibility for it?

I'll restate - it's nothing to do with poverty. Nothing. At. All.
"Blame it on poverty" is one of those stupid leftist mantras which try to blame everything on the rich/poor gap (and by association, capitalism). It's an easy thing to spout so that you don't have to look at the real causes of the problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Wrong. Which bit of "the government can arrange for your underage daughter to have an abortion without you even knowing she was pregnant" are you not understanding?

The government doesn't arrange an abortion, it has made a decision that the wishes and the right to privacy of the patient are more important in this case than the right of the parents to know about it.

However, it would be news to me if the government would `arrange' for an abortion against the will of the patient.

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you don't know that there's a problem, how can you take responsibility for it?

It's a question of trust between parents and children. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll restate - it's nothing to do with poverty. Nothing. At. All.
"Blame it on poverty" is one of those stupid leftist mantras which try to blame everything on the rich/poor gap (and by association, capitalism). It's an easy thing to spout so that you don't have to look at the real causes of the problem.

Take a look what group of people has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies. Almost surely you will find it's people with a bad education and stem from poor families. I don't blame capitalism or anything. Little money or a bad education cannot be used as an excuse if you screw up your life. You cannot be blamed on the boundary conditions of life you are born in, but you are responsible for what you make of it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The government doesn't arrange an abortion, it has made a decision that the wishes and the right to privacy of the patient are more important in this case than the right of the parents to know about it.

There ya go - the government has decided that what the kid wants is more important than what the parents want. Which has been what I've been saying all along - the government is removing parents' abilities to bring up their kids according to how they, and not the government, want.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

There ya go - the government has decided that what the kid wants is more important than what the parents want. Which has been what I've been saying all along - the government is removing parents' abilities to bring up their kids according to how they, and not the government, want.

I think you got too focused on the issue of abortions. The topic of this thread is not about abortions (the girl will keep the baby. So, again, this question is not relevant in this context.

You also don't seem to argue any of my other points either. Where you see ideology, I see statistical facts.

The problem are their parents that neither care for education nor for making sure their children will be able to get jobs later on in life. And this is clearly related to wealth.

edit: fixed a vbb tag

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I think you got too focused on the issue of abortions. The topic of this thread is not about abortions (the girl will keep the baby. So, again, this question is not relevant in this context.

Incorrect. I believe you've become too focused on the abortion example being a separate issue. It's not - it's all part and parcel of the same government controls. Easy to compartmentalise to avoid the real issues and blame it on poverty.

Tell ya what Oreo. We'll continue this discussion when you've been living in the UK for a while and been looking at the problems from the inside. I currently spend upwards of six hours a day looking at political issues such as this, from the inside. Germany ain't the UK. The UK ain't Germany.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Incorrect. I believe you've become too focused on the abortion example being a separate issue. It's not - it's all part and parcel of the same government controls. Easy to compartmentalise to avoid the real issues and blame it on poverty.

I don't blame poverty, I don't use it as a pretext for anything, although you seem to insist that I do. But statistics say that there is a clear correlation between the two, like it or not. If you take a look at the date of the report in the link I've supplied, you'll notice something peculiar, 1993, i. e. longer than your favorite 9 years ago.

Statistics also say that during the Iron Lady's reign, Britain didn't manage to reduce teen pregnancy rates, whereas the rest of Europe succeeded. So I would even claim the opposite, high teen pregnancy rates in Britain today are a result of conservative politics in the 80s and 90s.

Unless you are saying that the government's involvement in parenting a child has an impact on the teen pregnancy rate in Britain. While I agree that parenting should be done by the parents and not the government (regardless of the issue of teen pregnancy rates and the likes), statistics just don't back your assertions. You should separate moral issues from facts in this case.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Tell ya what Oreo. We'll continue this discussion when you've been living in the UK for a while and been looking at the problems from the inside. I currently spend upwards of six hours a day looking at political issues such as this, from the inside. Germany ain't the UK. The UK ain't Germany.

Proof by intimidation won't work.

[Monique]

Obviously the parenting was left to the mother of that 11 years old and she did an extremly lousy job by allowing her daughter to go to that kind of party where she got drunk. If she knew her daughter was sleeping around, she could have put on the pill or if the mother does not care about her own daughter.

Every country in the world have that kind of problems.

[mac1896]

Originally Posted by oVeRmInD911

Only in Europe (tm)

........and in trailer parks.......

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't blame poverty, I don't use it as a pretext for anything, although you seem to insist that I do.

So you didn't say the following then:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I totally agree that this is essentially a problem of poverty and not directly linked to politics.

?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Statistics also say that during the Iron Lady's reign, Britain didn't manage to reduce teen pregnancy rates, whereas the rest of Europe succeeded. So I would even claim the opposite, high teen pregnancy rates in Britain today are a result of conservative politics in the 80s and 90s.

Unless you are saying that the government's involvement in parenting a child has an impact on the teen pregnancy rate in Britain. While I agree that parenting should be done by the parents and not the government (regardless of the issue of teen pregnancy rates and the likes), statistics just don't back your assertions. You should separate moral issues from facts in this case.

You have to look beyond the surface and not take statistics into account (most of the statistics coming out of this government are fabricated BS). Let me show you...

This just in today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4999922.stm

Now... ...the key words here are:

In her first speech as Social Exclusion Minister Hilary Armstrong will call for early intervention to stop young people from being cut off from society.

And

"If we intervene earlier, if we actually do manage to work with families when the children are very young, and then we can actually identify how to take them in a different way, how to let them get engaged in a different way"

Now, seems kind of innocent and positive, no? Then you take it in context and see that it's essentially the prelude to even more social engineering (our government does a lot of this). The alarm bells should start ringing when you start to ask why we have a "Social Exclusion Minister" in the first place. And then you have to start to wonder what exactly they mean by "early intervention".

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Proof by intimidation won't work.

That wasn't intimidation. That was telling you that while you're doing something else, I'm now doing this kind of thing nearly full time. You telling me about UK politics is roughly equivalent to my emailing Porsche and telling them how to design a flat six engine.

[nath]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Statistics also say that during the Iron Lady's reign, Britain didn't manage to reduce teen pregnancy rates,

Teen pregnancy rates increased dramatically under 18 years of Conservative government in the UK, whilst over the same period they were declining throughout the rest of socialist Western Europe.

Doofy can disagree with the Office of National Statistics if he likes, but his inability (or hesitance) to provide contradictory data speaks volumes.

The conservative rationale that allowing parents to beat their children will somehow reverse this trend is one of the more idiotic mantras to spout forth from the tabloid press. Always a shame to see it so mindlessly repeated though.

[kick52]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

A couple of years back, I helped a few people get a duckling out of a storm drain like that. It does happen once in a while.

looks fake.

anyway, that girl is a slut. the child will be born with an adiction to cigarretes and then that child will also be a slut and become pregnent.

the child and the mother are ****ed up real bad.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you didn't say the following then:

I did say that poverty is (and that's what statistics are saying, nothing more nothing less) a very strong factor in this whole equation. Since most pregnant teens are from the poorest part of society, it is a problem especially for the poorer layers of society.

But what I did not say is that poverty excuses them for not paying attention. Proper birth control and upbringing isn't expensive. How you twist my words into saying that I would use poverty as a pretext is beyond me. It's just what the data says, whether we like it or not.

Originally Posted by Doofy

You have to look beyond the surface and not take statistics into account (most of the statistics coming out of this government are fabricated BS). Let me show you...

You shouldn't use any statistics that you haven't forged yourself, or so I have heard.

But anyway, your thesis was that the whole problem started with the reign of Blair (unless I misinterpret the `in the last 9 years' quotes ). The statistics don't support that. The article you have linked to also doesn't dispute this statistical fact.

Originally Posted by Doofy

That wasn't intimidation. That was telling you that while you're doing something else, I'm now doing this kind of thing nearly full time. You telling me about UK politics is roughly equivalent to my emailing Porsche and telling them how to design a flat six engine.

In my line of work, this technique is called proof by intimidation: stopping an argument by using your `authority' instead of giving factual evidence. The Porsche analogy doesn't hold either. You have yet to give any statistical evidence that support your claim that government involvement have a negative influence on teen pregnancy rates.

If you simply would admit that the whole issue of government involvement (which according to you has started/escalated when Blair's party won the elections) has no effect on teen pregnancy rates and is a separate issue, we'd be fine. Coz as you have said before, we agree that it's the parents' job to raise their children, not the governments. Just separate ideological arguments from factual (statistically supported) ones.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by as2

The legal age of consent for sex in the UK is 16.

If either party are under that age then it is classed as rape, whether or not they were consenting or not.

Well, if they're under 16 they're considered unable to give consent (the reasoning being something along the lines that you're too immature to make an informed decision).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Incorrect. I believe you've become too focused on the abortion example being a separate issue. It's not - it's all part and parcel of the same government controls. Easy to compartmentalise to avoid the real issues and blame it on poverty.

Maybe you should provide more examples that are relevant to the situation. You keep pointing out the fact that the government doesn't require parents to be notified if their daughter has an abortion, but that's all you've actually pointed out. Are there any other laws that you think contributed to the situation at hand?

Originally Posted by Doofy

Tell ya what Oreo. We'll continue this discussion when you've been living in the UK for a while and been looking at the problems from the inside.

So the more personally you are involved with something, the better you're able to objectively evaluate it? That seems kind of backwards.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Actually the fact that she got pregnant in the first place technically shows that her body is biologically ready for it.

Puberty is hitting earlier and earlier these days for various reasons (actually it's hitting earlier in cities than out on the countryside - chew on that "white trash theorists"). Couple the biological facts with historical facts - people got married and had babies around 12-13 in the olden days - and you have some interesting stuff that does not jive with our current sociological view on when a person can and cannot have a baby.

Thank goodness someone realizes that teens having babies isn't a new thing. People get all up in arms about young kids having babies as if it suddenly just started happening yesterday. This whole idea of 'childhood' in the western world is a new concept as well, less than a 100 years old. The weird thing is our society is now slowly stripping that fabricated 'childhood' away as we pressure our children to be more like adults in every way possible. Interesting social flip flop when you think about it.

[ghporter]

The point isn't that kids are having babies. It's that so many of them are having babies. In the year 2000, the pregnancy rate for teens in the U.S. was 47.7 births per 1000 young women in that age category according to the Guttmacher Institute. That's fully 21% lower than in 1991, but it's still WAY too high. Not only is teen motherhood bad as a policy and bad for both the young mother and the baby, it indicates that these children are getting very little in the way of accurate information about how their bodies work - AND their parents are NOT parenting.

My son is almost 19, he knows how reproduction works and has for many years. He understands both the biology and the sociology of producing a child. He knows this material because we taught him, and we taught him because we wanted him to know enough to make good decisions based on facts.

Any time a young girl says "I didn't think I'd get pregnant because it was my first time," that shows that her mother didn't teach her much. Which also probably means the mother didn't know much because she wasn't taught... See where I'm going? Sex education is VITAL to PREVENTING early pregnancy, and anyone who says we shouldn't teach kids about sex "because it'll put ideas in their heads" can't remember being a kid and having those ideas anyway (hormones do that to a person-it's built in).

I'm not up in arms about this particular kid. I'm up in arms about Western society not valuing kids enough to prepare them for the challenges they WILL face. Challenges like deciding when to have sex.

[Spliffdaddy]

when is that?

[ghporter]

That's a good question. But it's NOT at a time when a pregnancy could basically end your public school experience. Nor at a time when you don't have the basic skills to even take care of yourself, let alone a baby. Nor at a time when you're "experimenting" with a number of different people who are not at all close to you except in the physical sense. Obviously it's hard to decide, and when you're a kid the hormones want you to do everything right away. But the hormones are not in charge-or shouldn't be, and YOU should be in charge of your life, with an eye on your future. Getting pregnant (or getting someone pregnant) at a young age basically opts you out of being in charge of your life. It's giving up both responsibility and authority over your whole life. Is that what an adult does?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

This whole idea of 'childhood' in the western world is a new concept as well, less than a 100 years old.

Westerners invented children 100 years ago? Jigga who?

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Westerners invented children 100 years ago? Jigga who?

The idea of a 'childhood.' In the US, for example, before the 20th century most of the US population lived on farms, and most children worked in the home or in the field. Thats the way it was and had been since people started cultivating food. Heck, even public education was originally set up to get children read for factory life.

Anyways, we tend to shield children from things we find 'dangerous.' Sex, drugs, language, violence, death. Instead of shielding children maybe we should be teaching and educating them, and let them make their own decisions once given the proper info.

[LiquidIce1337]

teen s*x, yeah!

[Millennium]

Is anyone truly surprised? This is what happens when society loses sight of the importance of keeping your hormones in check. Abstinence-only isn't the answer, but neither is the abstinence-as-nonoption crap we teach in our schools nowadays.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Is anyone truly surprised? This is what happens when society loses sight of the importance of keeping your hormones in check. Abstinence-only isn't the answer, but neither is the abstinence-as-nonoption crap we teach in our schools nowadays.

Well, when I was in the States (PA, 1997/98), abstinence-only was taught. Same goes for my sister (GA, 1999/2000). Honestly, are there any schools in the States that teach abstinence-as-non-option?

I had rather the opposite impression. To the degree that I refused to take the test about it (with lots of suggestive questions and all this).

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, when I was in the States (PA, 1997/98), abstinence-only was taught. Same goes for my sister (GA, 1999/2000). Honestly, are there any schools in the States that teach abstinence-as-non-option?

Most of them. Not explicitly, of course, but what they do is mention abstinence as a footnote and then explicitly state their assumption that no one will abstain, because it's "not normal". That's the kiss of death among young people; the vast majority make a big show of being 'different' and 'rebellious,' but what they really want deep down is to be normal by some standard. So when you tell them "Abstinence is preferable, but it's not normal" you're effectively telling them "Do not abstain, because you won't be normal."

If you want people to abstain, you have to reassure them that it's just as normal and natural a choice as any other. Today's culture doesn't recognize that, and current sex-education practices don't do it either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Most of them. Not explicitly, of course, but what they do is mention abstinence as a footnote and then explicitly state their assumption that no one will abstain, because it's "not normal". That's the kiss of death among young people; the vast majority make a big show of being 'different' and 'rebellious,' but what they really want deep down is to be normal by some standard. So when you tell them "Abstinence is preferable, but it's not normal" you're effectively telling them "Do not abstain, because you won't be normal."

If you want people to abstain, you have to reassure them that it's just as normal and natural a choice as any other. Today's culture doesn't recognize that, and current sex-education practices don't do it either.

Well, this doesn't correspond to any of the experiences I've had. The class material pretended everybody was still a virgin, although roughly half of the class was already sexually active. You can imagine all the giggling and `too late' comments from that fraction. We even had a women in her 40s come over and talk about her experience of abstinence and how great it was for her that she has saved her virginity for her husband. So I had the opposite impression actually, abstinence-only was being pushed down our throats. We didn't spend much time on how to apply condoms or what kind of protection condoms actually give. Instead the mantra `the only way to …' was repeated over and over again.

Also, on a broader note, those countries that do not mention abstinence as a serious alternative and teach sex ed much earlier have much lower teen pregnancy rates than the States (or the UK for that matter). (Again, I think it's easier to separate the statistical argument from any moral argument.)