Forums > Social Discussion > Forced sterilization
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So I was having a talk with my senior resident.
Ok here's the setting: We work at a city hospital that serves Medicaid patients. These are poor, underserved patients who can't afford their own medical insurance and so have government insurance.
The thing is that most of these patients live on welfare, too. And when I say "on welfare," I mean that mom doesn't work because she has three kids and three kids pay enough welfare for mom to be able to support the family without working.
Here's the general life cycle in the Bronx.
1) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has baby.
2) 15-year-old girl, of course, cannot support baby and collects welfare.
3) Now 16-year-old girl drops out of school (or perhaps graduates high school) and in the process, manages to repeat the mistake and have another baby.
4) Now 19-year-old girl is working a minimum-wage job while grandma (aged 35 or so) is raising the two kids...and...manages to get pregnant AGAIN...
5) Now, with three kids, the welfare check is sufficient that she can maintain her three kids in a 2-bedroom apartment, and she stops working so she can raise her kids, because Grandma is at wit's end.
6) Now 25-26-year-old woman either fails to talk to her daughter about the birds and the bees or simply forbids her daughter to have sex. Which eventually results in...
7) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has a baby.
So here is my resident's plan. Quite simply, you are limited to three kids that you cannot support. Once you have that third kid, if you apply for government assistance, you are forced to undergo a tubal ligation/vasectomy. Both of these are reversible procedures so that if you do manage to pull your life back together, you can have (at government cost) the procedure reversed. Her reasoning is simple: "If you can't make a responsible choice and continue to spend my tax dollars on raising your kids, then I have to make the choice for you."
As horrible as it sounds, I honestly believe that these children are poorly raised by immature parents who were poorly raised themselves. As long as this cycle is allowed to continue unchecked, it will continue unchecked.
Here are my additions:
1) Sex ed is MANDATORY for all kids at age 10. Seem young? Most of my patients had coitarche (coit-ark-ee, meaning the onset of sexual activity) at age 12-13. No religious opt-outs, no exceptions, nothing. EVERYONE gets sex ed. Reading, writing, 'rithmetic, and reproductive planning. And condoms are provided FREE in schools. Birth control may be prescribed without parental consent and is available FREE to teenagers.
2) If you get pregnant and you are under 18, you have two choices: you may a) abort or b) give the baby up for ANONYMOUS adoption. Children may not raise children. If it's 11:58 PM on the evening of your 18th birthday and you have a kid...tough. Adoption. If you want a kid that badly, you can have another later.
Yes, it sounds harsh, but you have to look at it from the point of view of someone who has to take care of these children. I find them to be almost uniformly medically neglected. I have *NEVER* seen a parent actually fill a prescription for antibiotics that I have given, in spite of careful instruction and pep-talks into the importance of these. Parents expect us to GIVE them (because we do) over-the-counter drugs such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol, as they call it in the UK). They also expect the hospital to GIVE them passes on public transportation. And they call the EMS for their kid's coughs and colds because they know that EMS has to accept all pediatric patients, regardless of whether the complaint warrants EMS transport. And they have to pay ZERO copay for ED visits. I have seen so many children come in having asthma attacks and needing high-dose steroids (with cumulative toxicity) because their parents couldn't be arsed to fill and administer their preventative meds. I have seen obesity because more than 90% of a kid's diet is fast food because the parents can't be arsed to cook.
I beleive in government health care and I believe in the need for a social safety net, but there has to be some personal accountability in the system. The system as it is (at least in New York City) seems to reward people for abusing it. It's time that some pop-off valves were installed.
After all, I'm a working physician. I pay for my health insurance. If I go to the ED, I have a $50 copay and office visits have a $20 copay. Prescriptions have a copay from $10 to $30. I don't get over-the-counter drugs covered. And my insurance would LAUGH at me if I asked them for a MTA Metrocard. Why do unemployed people get better health insurance than I do?
At least I know where that third of my paycheck is going.
-Doc "The Conservatives aren't wrong about *everything*" Lightning
So I was having a talk with my senior resident.
Ok here's the setting: We work at a city hospital that serves Medicaid patients. These are poor, underserved patients who can't afford their own medical insurance and so have government insurance.
The thing is that most of these patients live on welfare, too. And when I say "on welfare," I mean that mom doesn't work because she has three kids and three kids pay enough welfare for mom to be able to support the family without working.
Here's the general life cycle in the Bronx.
1) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has baby.
2) 15-year-old girl, of course, cannot support baby and collects welfare.
3) Now 16-year-old girl drops out of school (or perhaps graduates high school) and in the process, manages to repeat the mistake and have another baby.
4) Now 19-year-old girl is working a minimum-wage job while grandma (aged 35 or so) is raising the two kids...and...manages to get pregnant AGAIN...
5) Now, with three kids, the welfare check is sufficient that she can maintain her three kids in a 2-bedroom apartment, and she stops working so she can raise her kids, because Grandma is at wit's end.
6) Now 25-26-year-old woman either fails to talk to her daughter about the birds and the bees or simply forbids her daughter to have sex. Which eventually results in...
7) 15-year-old girl gets pregnant, has a baby.
So here is my resident's plan. Quite simply, you are limited to three kids that you cannot support. Once you have that third kid, if you apply for government assistance, you are forced to undergo a tubal ligation/vasectomy. Both of these are reversible procedures so that if you do manage to pull your life back together, you can have (at government cost) the procedure reversed. Her reasoning is simple: "If you can't make a responsible choice and continue to spend my tax dollars on raising your kids, then I have to make the choice for you."
As horrible as it sounds, I honestly believe that these children are poorly raised by immature parents who were poorly raised themselves. As long as this cycle is allowed to continue unchecked, it will continue unchecked.
Here are my additions:
1) Sex ed is MANDATORY for all kids at age 10. Seem young? Most of my patients had coitarche (coit-ark-ee, meaning the onset of sexual activity) at age 12-13. No religious opt-outs, no exceptions, nothing. EVERYONE gets sex ed. Reading, writing, 'rithmetic, and reproductive planning. And condoms are provided FREE in schools. Birth control may be prescribed without parental consent and is available FREE to teenagers.
2) If you get pregnant and you are under 18, you have two choices: you may a) abort or b) give the baby up for ANONYMOUS adoption. Children may not raise children. If it's 11:58 PM on the evening of your 18th birthday and you have a kid...tough. Adoption. If you want a kid that badly, you can have another later.
Yes, it sounds harsh, but you have to look at it from the point of view of someone who has to take care of these children. I find them to be almost uniformly medically neglected. I have *NEVER* seen a parent actually fill a prescription for antibiotics that I have given, in spite of careful instruction and pep-talks into the importance of these. Parents expect us to GIVE them (because we do) over-the-counter drugs such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol, as they call it in the UK). They also expect the hospital to GIVE them passes on public transportation. And they call the EMS for their kid's coughs and colds because they know that EMS has to accept all pediatric patients, regardless of whether the complaint warrants EMS transport. And they have to pay ZERO copay for ED visits. I have seen so many children come in having asthma attacks and needing high-dose steroids (with cumulative toxicity) because their parents couldn't be arsed to fill and administer their preventative meds. I have seen obesity because more than 90% of a kid's diet is fast food because the parents can't be arsed to cook.
I beleive in government health care and I believe in the need for a social safety net, but there has to be some personal accountability in the system. The system as it is (at least in New York City) seems to reward people for abusing it. It's time that some pop-off valves were installed.
After all, I'm a working physician. I pay for my health insurance. If I go to the ED, I have a $50 copay and office visits have a $20 copay. Prescriptions have a copay from $10 to $30. I don't get over-the-counter drugs covered. And my insurance would LAUGH at me if I asked them for a MTA Metrocard. Why do unemployed people get better health insurance than I do?
At least I know where that third of my paycheck is going.
-Doc "The Conservatives aren't wrong about *everything*" Lightning
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Posted:
Somebody's jaded this evening. Personally, I'm inclined to disagree. Part of freedom is that you're allowed to be a moron. What needs to change is how the morons are being supported by the people with more than half a brain between the lot of them. It's certainly not a bad idea though. The one thing I thought was a little sketchy was the free birth control to teenagers. I think it'd be a more logical idea to have it just be over the counter (although I say this without knowing why it's perscription in the first place).
Somebody's jaded this evening. Personally, I'm inclined to disagree. Part of freedom is that you're allowed to be a moron. What needs to change is how the morons are being supported by the people with more than half a brain between the lot of them. It's certainly not a bad idea though. The one thing I thought was a little sketchy was the free birth control to teenagers. I think it'd be a more logical idea to have it just be over the counter (although I say this without knowing why it's perscription in the first place).
-James
"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Yup. I agree. You are allowed to be a moron. They can run around and have unprotected sex all they like and get all manner of diseases. But not children. Your right to be a moron ends at my wallet and at the lives you put into the world that I have to support.
And when your moronity means that I have to support your kids, then you should lose that bit of freedom.
I'd actually be fine with birth control being over-the-counter, but I also want it free. Because it's striking how small a barrier a teen needs to simply not use birth control. And if paying for it is going to stop them from using it, then they should get it free. I'm also for school health clinics giving free depo-provera shots.
Written by: sparkey!
Somebody's jaded this evening. Personally, I'm inclined to disagree. Part of freedom is that you're allowed to be a moron.
Yup. I agree. You are allowed to be a moron. They can run around and have unprotected sex all they like and get all manner of diseases. But not children. Your right to be a moron ends at my wallet and at the lives you put into the world that I have to support.
And when your moronity means that I have to support your kids, then you should lose that bit of freedom.
I'd actually be fine with birth control being over-the-counter, but I also want it free. Because it's striking how small a barrier a teen needs to simply not use birth control. And if paying for it is going to stop them from using it, then they should get it free. I'm also for school health clinics giving free depo-provera shots.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Pancake Maker
151 posts
Location: south wales
151 posts
Location: south wales
Posted:
ummmmm.... not got time to think of a suitable reply at the moment as I have to get the children ready for school.....but can I just mention one thing..
DADS
It takes two to make a baby, and I have waited 8 years for the government to attempt to arrange any sort of child support from my ex....I have recieved nothing from a dead beat dad who gets away with not paying a thing to his child's upbringing.
I agree with forced sterilisation....but not for the poor mums who struggle every day to bring up children on their own, it should be forced upon the dead beat dads who shirk their responsibilities so they don't go around spawning more children they are going to walk out on.
Rant over....may rant again later but you asked for it.
ummmmm.... not got time to think of a suitable reply at the moment as I have to get the children ready for school.....but can I just mention one thing..
DADS
It takes two to make a baby, and I have waited 8 years for the government to attempt to arrange any sort of child support from my ex....I have recieved nothing from a dead beat dad who gets away with not paying a thing to his child's upbringing.
I agree with forced sterilisation....but not for the poor mums who struggle every day to bring up children on their own, it should be forced upon the dead beat dads who shirk their responsibilities so they don't go around spawning more children they are going to walk out on.
Rant over....may rant again later but you asked for it.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Doc your plan's have some merit...but I personally believe you should get NO benefits for your 3rd child. Doing this may teach some responsibility (as the kid is no longer a paycheck) and curb this explosion in population we seem to be having.
But I do love kids....(they're the best excuse to play with toys other "grown ups" think are childish
Doc your plan's have some merit...but I personally believe you should get NO benefits for your 3rd child. Doing this may teach some responsibility (as the kid is no longer a paycheck) and curb this explosion in population we seem to be having.
But I do love kids....(they're the best excuse to play with toys other "grown ups" think are childish
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Pancake Maker
151 posts
Location: south wales
151 posts
Location: south wales
Posted:
Just one more thing.... I had my first child at 17...which according to your ruling I would have had to abort or put up for adoption... wtf
my daughter is a wonderful child, confident, well rounded, top of her class, (many people on here have met her and maybe she talks a little too much but she's still a sweetie)....Maybe I was a little young but I've done a hell of a lot better than some parents who were older than me (having worked a lot in schools, I can comfortably say this)
Now if her dad hadn't done a runner, and had paid the child support the government says he should (even though they don't seem to be able to enforce it) then yeah her life would be an awful lot better.
So until you have been a single mum...and no it isn't easy, especially not in this country living on a tiny welfare check (don't know what you get in the U.S but it is very little here).
I'll just add... a welfare check that most single mums hate having to be forced to claim, as it carries a lot of stigma. (please note my ex's income is 6x what I recieve on welfare, and he only has himself to support I have myself and 2 kids- so if he paid what he was meant to I wouldn't need welfare!!!!!!!)
So once again...go castrate the men who don't do anything for their kids....it should be one not supported child and you lose the right to have any more.
Edited bit...now I have a bit more time I would like to add....
Yes I agree with free contraception, although having written a thesis on teen pregnancy at university I have had a lot of time to consider the pros and cons...
So a few points...
*The pill is not 100% protective ( I should know!!!!)
*If a boy thinks he can't get a girl pregnant as she is using contraception then he is less likely to use condoms....so more chance of stds and stis being passed on.
*If the government were actually enforcing child support payments then I'm sure that as a deterent would ensure more males took more care over contraception...as it currently stands in this country there are so many ways to get out of paying...but if there weren't, I am pretty sure that including this fact in sex ed would be very useful.
I think it is very important to add that anyone who thinks someone has a baby just to get housing or welfare (please note that at 17 pregnant and homeless, I was informed that the housing waiting list was 5yrs and if I wanted they could add me to the bottom!) is seriously misguided.
I would also like to point out that although I fit into the immature and irresponsible parenting category stated above... my children never eat junk food and I can be bothered to cook every night.
EDITED_BY: becci (1128675074)
Just one more thing.... I had my first child at 17...which according to your ruling I would have had to abort or put up for adoption... wtf
my daughter is a wonderful child, confident, well rounded, top of her class, (many people on here have met her and maybe she talks a little too much but she's still a sweetie)....Maybe I was a little young but I've done a hell of a lot better than some parents who were older than me (having worked a lot in schools, I can comfortably say this)
Now if her dad hadn't done a runner, and had paid the child support the government says he should (even though they don't seem to be able to enforce it) then yeah her life would be an awful lot better.
So until you have been a single mum...and no it isn't easy, especially not in this country living on a tiny welfare check (don't know what you get in the U.S but it is very little here).
I'll just add... a welfare check that most single mums hate having to be forced to claim, as it carries a lot of stigma. (please note my ex's income is 6x what I recieve on welfare, and he only has himself to support I have myself and 2 kids- so if he paid what he was meant to I wouldn't need welfare!!!!!!!)
So once again...go castrate the men who don't do anything for their kids....it should be one not supported child and you lose the right to have any more.
Edited bit...now I have a bit more time I would like to add....
Yes I agree with free contraception, although having written a thesis on teen pregnancy at university I have had a lot of time to consider the pros and cons...
So a few points...
*The pill is not 100% protective ( I should know!!!!)
*If a boy thinks he can't get a girl pregnant as she is using contraception then he is less likely to use condoms....so more chance of stds and stis being passed on.
*If the government were actually enforcing child support payments then I'm sure that as a deterent would ensure more males took more care over contraception...as it currently stands in this country there are so many ways to get out of paying...but if there weren't, I am pretty sure that including this fact in sex ed would be very useful.
I think it is very important to add that anyone who thinks someone has a baby just to get housing or welfare (please note that at 17 pregnant and homeless, I was informed that the housing waiting list was 5yrs and if I wanted they could add me to the bottom!) is seriously misguided.
I would also like to point out that although I fit into the immature and irresponsible parenting category stated above... my children never eat junk food and I can be bothered to cook every night.
EDITED_BY: becci (1128675074)
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I have no problems with single mums at all. they have my respect and I doubt I could handle it. I have however met people who aren't as well meaning and sensible as yourself. one of my ex's got her 1 bed place because the woman who lived there with her 1 child, got pregnant again and demanded she be moved to a bigger house, she was told no. she then went and got pregnant 1 month after her second child and demanded again saying it was wrong of the government to keep her in a 1 bed house with 3 kids.....I met this woman and she didn't know who fathered her 2nd and 3rd children she didn't really care as long as she got a bigger house or moved up the waiting list.
THESE kind of people give hard working single mums a bad name. My respect goes out to you becci.
no offense was meant. I don't agree with docs idea which is basically "stealing children" from young mums, just the education of the young and free contraception.
Doc If you had a child and the law took it away, how would you feel (may be a silly Q but...)
I have no problems with single mums at all. they have my respect and I doubt I could handle it. I have however met people who aren't as well meaning and sensible as yourself. one of my ex's got her 1 bed place because the woman who lived there with her 1 child, got pregnant again and demanded she be moved to a bigger house, she was told no. she then went and got pregnant 1 month after her second child and demanded again saying it was wrong of the government to keep her in a 1 bed house with 3 kids.....I met this woman and she didn't know who fathered her 2nd and 3rd children she didn't really care as long as she got a bigger house or moved up the waiting list.
THESE kind of people give hard working single mums a bad name. My respect goes out to you becci.
no offense was meant. I don't agree with docs idea which is basically "stealing children" from young mums, just the education of the young and free contraception.Doc If you had a child and the law took it away, how would you feel (may be a silly Q but...)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Number 1 is definately a fantastic idea. Folks are far too prudish about sex ed.
I would agree with number 2 on a voluntary basis. Personally I think it would be best if enforced but it would seem a little unethical (what with the ripping of children from the arms of their mother) and so hard to gain support for.
Number 1 is definately a fantastic idea. Folks are far too prudish about sex ed.
I would agree with number 2 on a voluntary basis. Personally I think it would be best if enforced but it would seem a little unethical (what with the ripping of children from the arms of their mother) and so hard to gain support for.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Nope. Both. See, it takes two hands to clap and two people to f*ck. So if you father three kids and can't/won't support, then snippety-snip. Same with mothering.
Written by: becci
ummmmm.... not got time to think of a suitable reply at the moment as I have to get the children ready for school.....but can I just mention one thing..
DADS
I agree with forced sterilisation....but not for the poor mums who struggle every day to bring up children on their own, it should be forced upon the dead beat dads who shirk their responsibilities so they don't go around spawning more children they are going to walk out on.
Nope. Both. See, it takes two hands to clap and two people to f*ck. So if you father three kids and can't/won't support, then snippety-snip. Same with mothering.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Dreamer
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
4,308 posts
Location: York, England
Posted:
Yeah, some of these people need it.
Some of those under 18's are married and getting pregnant on purpose, you'll not be able to take kids away from them! And I do belive that what you will do is force a lot more teenagers into bad marriages... I'm *Sure* thats not what you were going for....
I'm with you on most of it. But the taking the kids away thing... You're suddenly not going to be supporting these people 'cause you've done everything else and its worked, right? (*crosses fingers, laugh*) but even so it'd be better. and you'll wind up supporting a lot of them in a mental institution. I know a woman who had an abortion at 17, and NEVER got over it. And she's not the only person like that in this country. Now, there is the adoption bit to consider... but then you're going to have all kinds of interference in the kids lives when the parents unhappy... kids they have when they're older will suffer from the parents unresolved issues.... Age laws arn't the answer. Yes, kids are easier to place at birth... but, what about expanding CPS and making it actually do something useful? (It seems to spend a lot of time harrassing people who arn't doing anything wrong and ignoring those who are, I know thats not thefull story, but...)... Add some funds there, make stricter rules for any child thats getting government assistance, the worst mums will get their kids pulled in a short period of time anyway, and theones who arn't [censored] it up that badly can go on about their lives....
Age laws.....? Seriously. Wtf. I've been mentioning britain's got it right because of birth control being free.... its a brilliant call.... but.... age laws? Liscense, maybe? What about a liscense? And then you can have it taken away if you [censored] up, like with driving. But even thats a tough one i'm afraid, much the way that reproductive rights always are.... system needs some editing as well methinks....
Yeah, some of these people need it.
Some of those under 18's are married and getting pregnant on purpose, you'll not be able to take kids away from them! And I do belive that what you will do is force a lot more teenagers into bad marriages... I'm *Sure* thats not what you were going for....
I'm with you on most of it. But the taking the kids away thing... You're suddenly not going to be supporting these people 'cause you've done everything else and its worked, right? (*crosses fingers, laugh*) but even so it'd be better. and you'll wind up supporting a lot of them in a mental institution. I know a woman who had an abortion at 17, and NEVER got over it. And she's not the only person like that in this country. Now, there is the adoption bit to consider... but then you're going to have all kinds of interference in the kids lives when the parents unhappy... kids they have when they're older will suffer from the parents unresolved issues.... Age laws arn't the answer. Yes, kids are easier to place at birth... but, what about expanding CPS and making it actually do something useful? (It seems to spend a lot of time harrassing people who arn't doing anything wrong and ignoring those who are, I know thats not thefull story, but...)... Add some funds there, make stricter rules for any child thats getting government assistance, the worst mums will get their kids pulled in a short period of time anyway, and theones who arn't [censored] it up that badly can go on about their lives....
Age laws.....? Seriously. Wtf. I've been mentioning britain's got it right because of birth control being free.... its a brilliant call.... but.... age laws? Liscense, maybe? What about a liscense? And then you can have it taken away if you [censored] up, like with driving. But even thats a tough one i'm afraid, much the way that reproductive rights always are.... system needs some editing as well methinks....
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
There is a delightful simplicity in Doc's reasoning and I'm starting to be won over. Full testicular removal instead of a vasectomy would curb the some of those violent tendences that the proletariat in Scotland exhibit. Could kill two birds bith one stone.
Written by: Doc Lightning
Nope. Both. See, it takes two hands to clap and two people to f*ck. So if you father three kids and can't/won't support, then snippety-snip. Same with mothering.
There is a delightful simplicity in Doc's reasoning and I'm starting to be won over. Full testicular removal instead of a vasectomy would curb the some of those violent tendences that the proletariat in Scotland exhibit. Could kill two birds bith one stone.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Honestly, I don't think it makes a difference. Evidence: the 16-year-old boy on my service who is already a father of one (18 mo) child. He's having unprotected sex with his current girlfriend.
You would THINK that the first mistake would have taught him a lesson. But no...
Written by: becci
*If a boy thinks he can't get a girl pregnant as she is using contraception then he is less likely to use condoms....so more chance of stds and stis being passed on.
Honestly, I don't think it makes a difference. Evidence: the 16-year-old boy on my service who is already a father of one (18 mo) child. He's having unprotected sex with his current girlfriend.
You would THINK that the first mistake would have taught him a lesson. But no...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Sure you can. Very few women who have *just* had a kid are prepared to get up and fight. The kid's gone. Vamoose. Children should not be raising children and should not have the right to do so.
I know a woman who had an abortion at 17, and NEVER got over it. And she's not the only person like that in this country.
Then she should take the adoption option.
Like what? Yes, more kids who were adopted have behavioral issues, but these are developmental/behavioral issues like autism, which are likely either genetic or stochastic, not caused by being raised adopted. I know many, MANY well-adjusted adopted kids.
I agree that CPS/ACS needs to be expanded to do something more useful, but not because they harass too many people who aren't doing anything wrong. But because, as you say, the rules aren't strict enough. I've seen kids go home with moms who clearly shouldn't be taking the kids home while the social worker sits there powerless to stop it.
Yup. Age laws. You need to be 18 to drink, vote, drive, etc. in England. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you need to be 18 to raise a kid.
And remember, this goes for fathers, as well. Three kids who you can't/won't support? *snip!*
This is equal-opportunity snippage here.
Written by: Kyrian
Yeah, some of these people need it.
Some of those under 18's are married and getting pregnant on purpose, you'll not be able to take kids away from them!
Sure you can. Very few women who have *just* had a kid are prepared to get up and fight. The kid's gone. Vamoose. Children should not be raising children and should not have the right to do so.
I know a woman who had an abortion at 17, and NEVER got over it. And she's not the only person like that in this country.
Then she should take the adoption option.
Written by:
Now, there is the adoption bit to consider... but then you're going to have all kinds of interference in the kids lives when the parents unhappy... kids they have when they're older will suffer from the parents unresolved issues....
Like what? Yes, more kids who were adopted have behavioral issues, but these are developmental/behavioral issues like autism, which are likely either genetic or stochastic, not caused by being raised adopted. I know many, MANY well-adjusted adopted kids.
Written by:
Age laws arn't the answer. Yes, kids are easier to place at birth... but, what about expanding CPS and making it actually do something useful? (It seems to spend a lot of time harrassing people who arn't doing anything wrong and ignoring those who are, I know thats not thefull story, but...)
I agree that CPS/ACS needs to be expanded to do something more useful, but not because they harass too many people who aren't doing anything wrong. But because, as you say, the rules aren't strict enough. I've seen kids go home with moms who clearly shouldn't be taking the kids home while the social worker sits there powerless to stop it.
Written by:
Age laws.....? Seriously. Wtf.
Yup. Age laws. You need to be 18 to drink, vote, drive, etc. in England. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you need to be 18 to raise a kid.
And remember, this goes for fathers, as well. Three kids who you can't/won't support? *snip!*
This is equal-opportunity snippage here.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
There's not much evidence that testosterone causes violence in itself except in toxic levels. Besides, that's cruel.
Unless the guy wears burberry...
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Doc Lightning
Nope. Both. See, it takes two hands to clap and two people to f*ck. So if you father three kids and can't/won't support, then snippety-snip. Same with mothering.
There is a delightful simplicity in Doc's reasoning and I'm starting to be won over. Full testicular removal instead of a vasectomy would curb the some of those violent tendences that the proletariat in Scotland exhibit. Could kill two birds bith one stone.
There's not much evidence that testosterone causes violence in itself except in toxic levels. Besides, that's cruel.
Unless the guy wears burberry...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Incidentally, I can see some of the single mothers on this board getting up in arms.
But most of the single mothers here have one, maybe two kids. And they work to support them. And therein lies the difference.
Incidentally, I can see some of the single mothers on this board getting up in arms.
But most of the single mothers here have one, maybe two kids. And they work to support them. And therein lies the difference.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Ah! You've visited Scotland.
Written by: Doc Lightning
...Unless the guy wears burberry...
Ah! You've visited Scotland.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Agree with No. 1 - would be silly to have the pill free for 13-y-olds cause you really shouldn't interfere with their hormones that early, unless there's a medical reason for it. So free condoms and mandatory sex-ed, yes of course.
But No. 2 I just can't agree on. Some of my friends have been born to teenagers, and I can't say they are worse people for it. On the contrary, they are better friends with their mums than most. In the past, it was usual for 15-y-olds to have kids, and it is possible, even though nowadays society is structured differently, and 15-y-olds aren't adults. However, if they grow up in [censored] families they're probably more grown-up than a 24-y-old student with his head up in the clouds.
There is a difference between a 17-y-old getting pregnant in a relationship with a guy who acts responsible, and both families supporting them, and a 17-y-old party-goer with parents who don't give a damn or can't manage to help getting pregnant from one of the 10 guys she slept with that month. You can't treat them all equally.
Finally, if a woman has 3 kids, and her rich husband suddenly decides to run off with his secretary, and it turns out she's left with nothing (happened to someone I know so it's not hypothetical), would you sterilise her because she needs social benefits now? You'd highly reduce all chances of her finding a new partner (who'd have to care for 3 kids with no chance of having his own with her one day) and coming off the social benefits.
I see where you're coming from, having worked in a hospital in Scotland's Burberry Capital (Dundee), where 18-y-old women usually screamed at their 2 kids to hurry the fxxk up. But then, they've been raised that way, have had crap relationships with arseholes all their lives (otherwise they wouldn't be in that situation!), and while I don't like them I feel for them and their kids. I don't like seeing kids treated that way, but just sterilise all of them just seems wrong. Even though the idea is actually quite popular in Edinburgh.
On the other hand, birthrates go back so much that without the chavs the population will probably go down dramatically...
Agree with No. 1 - would be silly to have the pill free for 13-y-olds cause you really shouldn't interfere with their hormones that early, unless there's a medical reason for it. So free condoms and mandatory sex-ed, yes of course.
But No. 2 I just can't agree on. Some of my friends have been born to teenagers, and I can't say they are worse people for it. On the contrary, they are better friends with their mums than most. In the past, it was usual for 15-y-olds to have kids, and it is possible, even though nowadays society is structured differently, and 15-y-olds aren't adults. However, if they grow up in [censored] families they're probably more grown-up than a 24-y-old student with his head up in the clouds.
There is a difference between a 17-y-old getting pregnant in a relationship with a guy who acts responsible, and both families supporting them, and a 17-y-old party-goer with parents who don't give a damn or can't manage to help getting pregnant from one of the 10 guys she slept with that month. You can't treat them all equally.
Finally, if a woman has 3 kids, and her rich husband suddenly decides to run off with his secretary, and it turns out she's left with nothing (happened to someone I know so it's not hypothetical), would you sterilise her because she needs social benefits now? You'd highly reduce all chances of her finding a new partner (who'd have to care for 3 kids with no chance of having his own with her one day) and coming off the social benefits.
I see where you're coming from, having worked in a hospital in Scotland's Burberry Capital (Dundee), where 18-y-old women usually screamed at their 2 kids to hurry the fxxk up. But then, they've been raised that way, have had crap relationships with arseholes all their lives (otherwise they wouldn't be in that situation!), and while I don't like them I feel for them and their kids. I don't like seeing kids treated that way, but just sterilise all of them just seems wrong. Even though the idea is actually quite popular in Edinburgh.
On the other hand, birthrates go back so much that without the chavs the population will probably go down dramatically...
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
old hand
1,024 posts
Location: london
1,024 posts
Location: london
Posted:
mike im gonna have to massively disagree with you on this one!
Sounds like a certan communist dictorship
Ud have to break some of the fundamental laws in medicene ie CONSENT!!! and the human right issues you are forcing people into operations sorry miss im going to force you into a medical operation because our government says so, coming from the U.K. (we have the highest teenage pregency rate in europe) i can understand what your saying sonthing has to be done, but i think the answer lays with education, ie
if your in recipt of state funding you have to attend a adult education centre where you can obtain qualifications, opening all sorts of doors, the father has to attend too.
is that not a better alocation of funds to educate rather than human right breaking operations?
And what about your hyproctatic oath?
Wow mike i would of never expected sonthing like this from you please say it was a passing thought
mike im gonna have to massively disagree with you on this one!
Sounds like a certan communist dictorship
Ud have to break some of the fundamental laws in medicene ie CONSENT!!! and the human right issues you are forcing people into operations sorry miss im going to force you into a medical operation because our government says so, coming from the U.K. (we have the highest teenage pregency rate in europe) i can understand what your saying sonthing has to be done, but i think the answer lays with education, ie
if your in recipt of state funding you have to attend a adult education centre where you can obtain qualifications, opening all sorts of doors, the father has to attend too.
is that not a better alocation of funds to educate rather than human right breaking operations?
And what about your hyproctatic oath?
Wow mike i would of never expected sonthing like this from you please say it was a passing thought
member
39 posts
Location: Glasgow-ish
39 posts
Location: Glasgow-ish
Posted:
it's unethical
it takes away patient's right to autonomy
it only reinforces the doctor/god complex
You cannot justify putting someone through an unnecessary procedure that has a mortality risk to stop them having children because someone else doesnt want them to.
I'm glad I work in the NHS and people are not judged by what they can afford.
it's unethical
it takes away patient's right to autonomy
it only reinforces the doctor/god complex
You cannot justify putting someone through an unnecessary procedure that has a mortality risk to stop them having children because someone else doesnt want them to.
I'm glad I work in the NHS and people are not judged by what they can afford.
Live life the fun way
Pancake Maker
151 posts
Location: south wales
151 posts
Location: south wales
Posted:
I totally agree that sterilising women is taking things a bit far, even if it is reversible.
For the last 5 years I have used implanon implants - this form of contraception, or long term methods such as the coil I think should be encouraged, especially in teenagers. Although there is no way you can justify forcing someone to have their hormones messed up. I personally will strongly encourage my daughter to have an implanon (or whatever is available in 7yrs time) fitted when she is 15/16 ish, as I do not want her to be a teenage mum.
but this then again raises the issues that condoms are less likely to be used by teens- so the more sex ed they get the better.
As for taking things to the extreme... why not sterilise everyone at birth then when they want to have a child they have to sit the parenting exams and provide evidence of enough savings to support the child whatever happens...when they can do this the people who make all the rules unsterilise them...et voila.
In real life there is a feasible option. There should be a set minimum amount agreed that it costs to raise a child, each case would then be looked at individually to decide what percentage each parent should contribute to the upbringing factors included would be who looked after the child (thus less able to work many hours without dumping child in day care and according to recent research not providing them with the best start in life), who was able to work more hours etc. The government would then pay to the parent with care the percentage owed by absent parent, which would become debt for that absent parent to then repay.
So kind of like the current system where absent parents are meant to pay for their kids but dont as government are useless at enforcing it....but this way the government instead of providing welfare from tax payers money would be billing the absent parents directly, and be therefore more inclined to go chase the money.
And once again on the 17yr olds being forced to abort or put up for adoption... I would have liked to see you make me do it.
I really dont think age law is very relevant in this case, admittedly you are allowed to have a sexual relationship at 16 and can get married at 16- maybe these laws should be changed!
I also think that In having my children at a younger age I will be able to concentrate more on my career in my 30's without having to take time out for having babies. So then I shall be able to contribute more back to society...and pay my taxes!!!!
Also back on the subject of sex ed I would happily go into schools and talk about my experiences to teenagers....maybe there should be more uptake of these sorts of offers, bringing the real world to teens hopefully making them think twice.
But I still think that dead beat dads should have their willies cut off
I totally agree that sterilising women is taking things a bit far, even if it is reversible.
For the last 5 years I have used implanon implants - this form of contraception, or long term methods such as the coil I think should be encouraged, especially in teenagers. Although there is no way you can justify forcing someone to have their hormones messed up. I personally will strongly encourage my daughter to have an implanon (or whatever is available in 7yrs time) fitted when she is 15/16 ish, as I do not want her to be a teenage mum.
but this then again raises the issues that condoms are less likely to be used by teens- so the more sex ed they get the better.
As for taking things to the extreme... why not sterilise everyone at birth then when they want to have a child they have to sit the parenting exams and provide evidence of enough savings to support the child whatever happens...when they can do this the people who make all the rules unsterilise them...et voila.
In real life there is a feasible option. There should be a set minimum amount agreed that it costs to raise a child, each case would then be looked at individually to decide what percentage each parent should contribute to the upbringing factors included would be who looked after the child (thus less able to work many hours without dumping child in day care and according to recent research not providing them with the best start in life), who was able to work more hours etc. The government would then pay to the parent with care the percentage owed by absent parent, which would become debt for that absent parent to then repay.
So kind of like the current system where absent parents are meant to pay for their kids but dont as government are useless at enforcing it....but this way the government instead of providing welfare from tax payers money would be billing the absent parents directly, and be therefore more inclined to go chase the money.
And once again on the 17yr olds being forced to abort or put up for adoption... I would have liked to see you make me do it.
I really dont think age law is very relevant in this case, admittedly you are allowed to have a sexual relationship at 16 and can get married at 16- maybe these laws should be changed!
I also think that In having my children at a younger age I will be able to concentrate more on my career in my 30's without having to take time out for having babies. So then I shall be able to contribute more back to society...and pay my taxes!!!!
Also back on the subject of sex ed I would happily go into schools and talk about my experiences to teenagers....maybe there should be more uptake of these sorts of offers, bringing the real world to teens hopefully making them think twice.
But I still think that dead beat dads should have their willies cut off
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Posted:
I think that there should definately be an appeal option. If the teen can prove that it's a responsible parent and can support the child, there's no real reason it should give up its child. If they don't get their appeals, then you could force them to give up their childeren.
Or, we could just perminately sterilize everybody at birth, that'd help things a lot more.
I think that there should definately be an appeal option. If the teen can prove that it's a responsible parent and can support the child, there's no real reason it should give up its child. If they don't get their appeals, then you could force them to give up their childeren.
Or, we could just perminately sterilize everybody at birth, that'd help things a lot more.
-James
"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"
Pancake Maker
151 posts
Location: south wales
151 posts
Location: south wales
Posted:
Come to think of it the world would probably be a better place withour humans...so good plan
Written by: sparkey!
Or, we could just perminately sterilize everybody at birth, that'd help things a lot more.
Come to think of it the world would probably be a better place withour humans...so good plan
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Mike, is there any way that you could give the women some form of long term birth control instead? I think the only such thing available in the states (at least that you wouldn't have to come back more than yearly to mess with) is the IUD. I may be very wrong (and please correct me if I am), but doesn't having ones tubes tied early mess with hormones and then possibly cause complications later in life?
Also, what do you have against open adoptions since you mentioned anonymous ones specifically?
Mike, is there any way that you could give the women some form of long term birth control instead? I think the only such thing available in the states (at least that you wouldn't have to come back more than yearly to mess with) is the IUD. I may be very wrong (and please correct me if I am), but doesn't having ones tubes tied early mess with hormones and then possibly cause complications later in life?
Also, what do you have against open adoptions since you mentioned anonymous ones specifically?
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i agree with point 1.
maybe not the birth control thing for the reasons birgit stated.
but point number 2?
at the very least, it all sounds a bit unconstitutional mike.
for someone that is pretty much prepared to die to avoid random bag searches on the subway, i wouldn't have expected this kind of suggestion:
"If it's 11:58 PM on the evening of your 18th birthday and you have a kid...tough. Adoption. If you want a kid that badly, you can have another later."
just get another one later?
mike - wtf?!
and your justification for this is what?
that you have seen some teenage mothers on medicaid who were, in your opinion, bad mothers and wholly irresponsible.
i know you and you know me so i'm not going to be shy in saying that's absolutely ridiculous.
believe it or not, teenage pregnancy is not the worst thing in the world and it does not guarantee that the child will be raised badly/medically neglected etc.
many, many teenage mothers are mature and responsible enough to care for their baby as well as any other mother could.
serving blanket judgements on all teenage mothers based on what you have seen across a small sample of medicaid patients is not the cleverest way to come to a conclusion now is it?
i realise that there are problems but your solution here is not one that i would ever agree with.
"If you can't make a responsible choice and continue to spend my tax dollars on raising your kids, then I have to make the choice for you."
this kind of rhetoric is not something i don't ever like hearing.
they are not 'your tax dollars' and you don't get to have a say on where it they are spent - your elected officials do that for you.
and as for making choices for someone who, in your personal opinion, is not fit to make them for themselves, you should realise the implications of where suggestions like that could lead.
its a problem but your 'solution' is no less irresponsible in my eyes.
cole. x
i agree with point 1.
maybe not the birth control thing for the reasons birgit stated.
but point number 2?
at the very least, it all sounds a bit unconstitutional mike.
for someone that is pretty much prepared to die to avoid random bag searches on the subway, i wouldn't have expected this kind of suggestion:
"If it's 11:58 PM on the evening of your 18th birthday and you have a kid...tough. Adoption. If you want a kid that badly, you can have another later."
just get another one later?
mike - wtf?!
and your justification for this is what?
that you have seen some teenage mothers on medicaid who were, in your opinion, bad mothers and wholly irresponsible.
i know you and you know me so i'm not going to be shy in saying that's absolutely ridiculous.
believe it or not, teenage pregnancy is not the worst thing in the world and it does not guarantee that the child will be raised badly/medically neglected etc.
many, many teenage mothers are mature and responsible enough to care for their baby as well as any other mother could.
serving blanket judgements on all teenage mothers based on what you have seen across a small sample of medicaid patients is not the cleverest way to come to a conclusion now is it?
i realise that there are problems but your solution here is not one that i would ever agree with.
"If you can't make a responsible choice and continue to spend my tax dollars on raising your kids, then I have to make the choice for you."
this kind of rhetoric is not something i don't ever like hearing.
they are not 'your tax dollars' and you don't get to have a say on where it they are spent - your elected officials do that for you.
and as for making choices for someone who, in your personal opinion, is not fit to make them for themselves, you should realise the implications of where suggestions like that could lead.
its a problem but your 'solution' is no less irresponsible in my eyes.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
old hand
1,024 posts
Location: london
1,024 posts
Location: london
Posted:
another point on the forced adoption front, where you going to find all these new foster parents!! i think worldwide 18 percent of pregnencies are before 19 if my memory serves me correctly?
another point on the forced adoption front, where you going to find all these new foster parents!! i think worldwide 18 percent of pregnencies are before 19 if my memory serves me correctly?
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
If you put your child up for adoption, it is permanent parents that are found, not foster parents. At least in the states, there is a very long line of people wanting to adopt newborns, so that part isn't a problem here. I don't know about abroad. I've put a daughter up for adoption before. I know the process is fairly simple - it involves appearing before a judge and relenquishing all parental rights for both the birth mother and birth father. In my case, I had at least 40 different couples to choose from as to who to give my baby to, and that was just through one agency. There are many, many agencies out there doing exactly the same thing.
If you put your child up for adoption, it is permanent parents that are found, not foster parents. At least in the states, there is a very long line of people wanting to adopt newborns, so that part isn't a problem here. I don't know about abroad. I've put a daughter up for adoption before. I know the process is fairly simple - it involves appearing before a judge and relenquishing all parental rights for both the birth mother and birth father. In my case, I had at least 40 different couples to choose from as to who to give my baby to, and that was just through one agency. There are many, many agencies out there doing exactly the same thing.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Personally I don't think that anyone should have a child before the age of 20. At that age people generally don't have any guarenteed income of any nature, and it's a bit unfair on the child to be raised with that kind of financial insecurity. I would also point out that (At the moment) most people work out that going out and getting druk every night is a BAD idea at, say, 21. I know there are exceptions, but that's what the majority is like.
I hate NEETs (No Education, Employment or Training, Trans: Chavs) sucking up tax money as much as anyone, and would welcome a long term contraceptive measure. It's not like condoms make the sex better or anything... but I DO use them, because 1. I'm not stupid, and 2. Well, I'm just not stupid.
There have been times when I've been tempted, but it's really a very simple equation:
1 Night of carefree sex...
VS
18 years of parental responsibility.
The answer is, IMO obvious. All we need is a contraceptive device that is effective (for males and/or females) for about 5 years. Encourage it like hell in schools and hospitals to get it on your 15th/16th birthday. You can then have as much sex as you want until you're 20ish. Now we just need to come up with a viable method. And it might be a good idea to send postal reminders to people to get checked for STIs, once every 2 months or something.
Personally I don't think that anyone should have a child before the age of 20. At that age people generally don't have any guarenteed income of any nature, and it's a bit unfair on the child to be raised with that kind of financial insecurity. I would also point out that (At the moment) most people work out that going out and getting druk every night is a BAD idea at, say, 21. I know there are exceptions, but that's what the majority is like.
I hate NEETs (No Education, Employment or Training, Trans: Chavs) sucking up tax money as much as anyone, and would welcome a long term contraceptive measure. It's not like condoms make the sex better or anything... but I DO use them, because 1. I'm not stupid, and 2. Well, I'm just not stupid.
There have been times when I've been tempted, but it's really a very simple equation:
1 Night of carefree sex...
VS
18 years of parental responsibility.
The answer is, IMO obvious. All we need is a contraceptive device that is effective (for males and/or females) for about 5 years. Encourage it like hell in schools and hospitals to get it on your 15th/16th birthday. You can then have as much sex as you want until you're 20ish. Now we just need to come up with a viable method. And it might be a good idea to send postal reminders to people to get checked for STIs, once every 2 months or something.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
old hand
1,024 posts
Location: london
1,024 posts
Location: london
Posted:
thankyou sprite for my education..
a question out of the 40 familys were they all fantastic? the problem is we would have to be less choosey i mean if mandatoroty adoption was in force you would be looking at 10s of thousends more children up for adoption.
I do really dislike the prespective of they are taking all our money away. Please remember that these are people that you are talking about. Id personally say our problem lays in education for example not all schools in america have to give sex education make that mandatoroty.
Provide resources for people in recipt of state benifit for example manadoroty adult education system.
thankyou sprite for my education..
a question out of the 40 familys were they all fantastic? the problem is we would have to be less choosey i mean if mandatoroty adoption was in force you would be looking at 10s of thousends more children up for adoption.
I do really dislike the prespective of they are taking all our money away. Please remember that these are people that you are talking about. Id personally say our problem lays in education for example not all schools in america have to give sex education make that mandatoroty.
Provide resources for people in recipt of state benifit for example manadoroty adult education system.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Adoption agencies to screen their potential parents, so all of them could have supported my child in a much better capacity than I could have being an unemployed freshman in college. I had absolute faith an any of the potential parents. I picked the ones I did because they had an interest in music...both myself and the father were active in music performance at the time (the father still is), so we felt that our child should experience that in some aspect of their life.
However, in an anonymous adoption as Lightning is suggesting, the birth parents would have no say in who their child goes to. All adoption agencies I have had experience with do have some sort of rigorous screening, though, so I do feel a wonderful home would be provided.
The pool of 40 applicants was just for the specifics that I had requested - the agency had many, many more potential parents waiting in line. And really, it is just that at the moment - a line. People that want to adopt a newborn will often wait at least 5-6 years (frequently more) before they actually receive a child.
Adoption agencies to screen their potential parents, so all of them could have supported my child in a much better capacity than I could have being an unemployed freshman in college. I had absolute faith an any of the potential parents. I picked the ones I did because they had an interest in music...both myself and the father were active in music performance at the time (the father still is), so we felt that our child should experience that in some aspect of their life.
However, in an anonymous adoption as Lightning is suggesting, the birth parents would have no say in who their child goes to. All adoption agencies I have had experience with do have some sort of rigorous screening, though, so I do feel a wonderful home would be provided.
The pool of 40 applicants was just for the specifics that I had requested - the agency had many, many more potential parents waiting in line. And really, it is just that at the moment - a line. People that want to adopt a newborn will often wait at least 5-6 years (frequently more) before they actually receive a child.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Sethis, it won't work that easily. HIV rates are going up again because people think having regular tests will save them from getting it. THEY DON'T. Condoms do, and nothing else at the moment. The people who are responsible enough to get tested when with a new partner are usually not the people to randomly sleep around without any protection anyways. But those who do can infect 5 or 6 people by the time of their next test.
What are your opinions on unemployed people having children? I mean unemployed as in looking for work but not finding any (yup they DO exist even if they are in the minority), not as in unemployed cause it's more fun. I don't think it's fair to tell someone they shouldn't have kids just because their qualification is not sought after anymore and they have to rely on benefits.
Also, if it's about being able to look after kids, what about disabled parents?
You can't just sterilise everyone just because they won't make a perfect parent! Here's an article about the sterilisation of disabled people in Sweden between 1935-1975; it's probably not accessible unless through uni computers, but the bottom link at least says what it's about.
https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8519.00110
In the section "the argument from autonomy" the author summarises my opinions quite nicely - Doc, I recommend you read it though it's a bit philosophical and of course you don't have to agree
https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8519.00110
Sethis, it won't work that easily. HIV rates are going up again because people think having regular tests will save them from getting it. THEY DON'T. Condoms do, and nothing else at the moment. The people who are responsible enough to get tested when with a new partner are usually not the people to randomly sleep around without any protection anyways. But those who do can infect 5 or 6 people by the time of their next test.
What are your opinions on unemployed people having children? I mean unemployed as in looking for work but not finding any (yup they DO exist even if they are in the minority), not as in unemployed cause it's more fun. I don't think it's fair to tell someone they shouldn't have kids just because their qualification is not sought after anymore and they have to rely on benefits.
Also, if it's about being able to look after kids, what about disabled parents?
You can't just sterilise everyone just because they won't make a perfect parent! Here's an article about the sterilisation of disabled people in Sweden between 1935-1975; it's probably not accessible unless through uni computers, but the bottom link at least says what it's about.
https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8519.00110
In the section "the argument from autonomy" the author summarises my opinions quite nicely - Doc, I recommend you read it though it's a bit philosophical and of course you don't have to agree
https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8519.00110
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think the first problem is the lack of sexual education, Ide like to say we have it good in england but all they had at my school was one lesson on it, and very little was coverd then, if I was a parent ide be really pissed off at the school for doing it half assed the way they did.
I think the second problem is the way america does two things, firstly it dosent provide anyhting like the NHS, wich while is difficult to get right for a country, and may have its teething problems its better than the system of america of having to pay for everything. I think its shocking actually that you have to pay for the right to be kept alive, or have madical problems treated in this day and age.
From what doc says it sounds to me like the welfare system in america is wrong too, instead of the ideas put fourth by doc in his first posts, all that can really be done to solve the problem is to set certain conditions to recieving benifits. For instance over here, (unless your in some very specific and unusuall circumstance) if you dont meet conditions you dont get benifits, like activly looking for work for one thing, and they keep an eye on you. After so long if you fail to get a job and they think you arnt looking properlly (and sticking to your agreement) benifits stop.
I think americas problem is, lack of education and public awareness, and a system of benifits and medical care that is out of date, and unreasonable. Also americas size means that unless you keep on top of things, problems get too out of hand.
I think the first problem is the lack of sexual education, Ide like to say we have it good in england but all they had at my school was one lesson on it, and very little was coverd then, if I was a parent ide be really pissed off at the school for doing it half assed the way they did.
I think the second problem is the way america does two things, firstly it dosent provide anyhting like the NHS, wich while is difficult to get right for a country, and may have its teething problems its better than the system of america of having to pay for everything. I think its shocking actually that you have to pay for the right to be kept alive, or have madical problems treated in this day and age.
From what doc says it sounds to me like the welfare system in america is wrong too, instead of the ideas put fourth by doc in his first posts, all that can really be done to solve the problem is to set certain conditions to recieving benifits. For instance over here, (unless your in some very specific and unusuall circumstance) if you dont meet conditions you dont get benifits, like activly looking for work for one thing, and they keep an eye on you. After so long if you fail to get a job and they think you arnt looking properlly (and sticking to your agreement) benifits stop.
I think americas problem is, lack of education and public awareness, and a system of benifits and medical care that is out of date, and unreasonable. Also americas size means that unless you keep on top of things, problems get too out of hand.
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com