Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Firstly, you can't really stop that, and secondly, moral and immoral are subjective, so who is to say what's moral and what's immoral?
    As I said before, I am not referring to moral 'hotspots' such as homosexuality, I am referring to moral issues that are not accepted by society as a whole such as stealing or racism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Did you see the ruling in the US that forbade a cracka ddicted couple to have any more kids? They had had countless kids they couldnt take care of, and all the children were born with drugs in their system.

    Im all for civil rights, but people like that should be sterilised ASAP
    I'm inclined to agree with you. I really hate government interference big time but in a situation like that, what are we to do? Is it government's obligation to facilitate and accomodate (with our money) an almost perpetual state of pregnancy for a crackhead? I think not.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Last time I suggested something like that here I was referred to Hitler
    Well Hitler and Mussolini weren't all bad... like they say the buses ran on time!

    I would class myself as a liberal - but the fundamental principle of liberalism is autonomy - and self-determination - it is NOT a right to harm others. In such cases thats what these parent's are doing. As such liberalism does NOT require us to stand by and do nothing in the name of personal freedom.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm inclined to agree with you. I really hate government interference big time but in a situation like that, what are we to do? Is it government's obligation to facilitate and accomodate (with our money) an almost perpetual state of pregnancy for a crackhead? I think not.
    The government shoudl stay the HELL out of people's lives when those persons are causing no substantail harm to others. However, the government is really an emination of the people (in a democracy) and the PEOPLE have a right to stop individuals harming society at large, physically or financially.

    I must apologise for the spelling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Im all for civil rights, but people like that should be sterilised ASAP
    And how about sterilising people who have any kind of mental or physical handicap which was inherited. Surely they will not be able to cope with parenthood. Why not sterilise everyone who isn't in peak fitness and health.

    You beginning to sound like you want to try eugenics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Well there are laws against stealing and racism, so they're different.
    there are also laws against underage sex.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    And how about sterilising people who have any kind of mental or physical handicap which was inherited. Surely they will not be able to cope with parenthood. Why not sterilise everyone who isn't in peak fitness and health.

    You beginning to sound like you want to try eugenics.
    Such persons are sterilised if it is in their best interests. I refer you to the House of Lords Decision Re F. I forget the year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Well Hitler and Mussolini weren't all bad... like they say the buses ran on time!

    I would class myself as a liberal - but the fundamental principle of liberalism is autonomy - and self-determination - it is NOT a right to harm others. In such cases thats what these parent's are doing. As such liberalism does NOT require us to stand by and do nothing in the name of personal freedom.
    Are you are condoning what hitler did then? who are we to judge what quality of life any child will have. Their parent's might have been addicts, but perhaps the child may be a remedy for them to sort themselves out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Such persons are sterilised if it is in their best interests. I refer you to the House of Lords Decision Re F. I forget the year.
    So I should be sterilised then as any children I have will most likely have aspurger's syndrome, dyslexia and dyspraxia. Of course, that wouldn't be fair on the children, why should they have to live with the same problems I have.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Are you are condoning what hitler did then? who are we to judge what quality of life any child will have. Their parent's might have been addicts, but perhaps the child may be a remedy for them to sort themselves out.
    1. This is the problem with people - its like if someone says "Hitler was a brilliant military commander" - everyone is like "OH MY GOD HOW DARE YOU!" - why can't I say that there are elements of Hitler - such as public works achievments that can be separated from his murderous rampage? Of course I'm not condoning the holocaust - I had family killed in it - but they are separate issues.

    2. Who are we to judge? We are the people paying for the child - I would say we are PRECISELY the people to jude. Also Im all for moral relativsim - but a baby being born with CRACK in its system is NOT set up for a "good life" in any sane person's book

    3. The chidl wasn't a remedy - neither were the 8 previous ones.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    So I should be sterilised then as any children I have will most likely have aspurger's syndrome, dyslexia and dyspraxia. Of course, that wouldn't be fair on the children, why should they have to live with the same problems I have.
    Thats not what I said - the point was that she was incapable of caring for the child due to severe mental disability. I take it from your insightful posts that you do not have that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    But what would you suggest is do about them, the child is taken away from them and put into care. Social services are already stretched when it comes to child care, they wouldn't be able to cope.
    We cannot stop these individuals reproducing, but we can try to educate their progeny.
    Maybe we can dampen their lust and desire to procreate by reducing or even stopping welfare payments. I'm a great believer in the abolition of child support. As we say down here "If you can't feed em, don't breed em"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    As we say down here "If you can't feed em, don't breed em"
    right!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    And how about sterilising people who have any kind of mental or physical handicap which was inherited. Surely they will not be able to cope with parenthood. Why not sterilise everyone who isn't in peak fitness and health.

    You beginning to sound like you want to try eugenics.
    I think you're over reacting to be honest.

    There's a world of difference between sterilizing a crackhead prostitute that produces a child a year only to hand them over to the State because she can't even begin to care for them and embarking on a program of eugenics to create a world of supermen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    But parents are often rubbish at teaching/giving advice or just ignore it out of embarassment.
    exactly.. also, along with sex ed lessons should come a kind of life - counselling lesson.. this is a gross generalisation (no offence at all intended) but a certain proportion of teenage pregnancies are found in areas of little economic achievement and educational success (for example, run-down council estates.. i know there are very good estates, but some are awful and hold no inspiration or hope for the occupants) .. having a life-coach or motivater (sp?) come to the school to convince the students that they can make something of their lives, that they can earn lots of money if they want to, and that they dont have to turn to crime, vandalism, and leaving school at 16, just to be cool or get money. they should know that although private schools or wealthy state schools may seem to offer their students a more privileged education, that the students are no different, and that they still work bloody hard for their grades, and have aspirations and get what they want.. what im trying to say is, that sex ed isnt the whole cause of the teenage pregnancy problem (i know this is unrelated to the original thread title) but in light of the 14 year old girl having an abortion, i feel its equally important to encourage career advice in schools, and promote a positive attitude to planning your life.. and that you can achieve practically anything.. and that having a child at the age of 15 is probably one of the best ways to close off a lot of opportunities that life has to offer
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the parent chooses WHAT information, what progress is being made and how much the child should know..
    To give a fool too much power would bring an end to wisdom itself.

    I'd just like to point out that the story that sparked this discussion turned out to be false. Don't beleive everything you read in the tabloids
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    I'd just like to point out that the story that sparked this discussion turned out to be false. Don't beleive everything you read in the tabloids
    As I said...
    (Original post by Amb1)
    I find that difficult to believe to be honest. Both of them must have led extremely sheltered lives to never have heard of sex - ever!! Even if they weren't aware of the details they must've come across it (excuse the phrasing!!) at some point and surely this would have aroused (:rolleyes: ) some kind of curiosity. And to never wonder or ask "where do babies come from?" is also a bit hard to believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=

    Do you think sex ed should be compulsary despite religious or other objections.
    I personally think that all children should be shown a couple having sex in front of the class at about age 13. It will never happen of course, but all the lessons can be learnt immediately. E.g. how to use condoms properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think Sire has already stated the only method of Sex Education that would really work, but then of course it might encourage children to try it out. The trouble is that with compulsory sex education, some people will always be too young for it and others will be too mature as they will only be all too aware of it.

    At my school, i go to a private school, i recieved sex ed in year 6 (aged 10), when we were too young and just caught jokes watching naked people walk around a house and watching sperm impregnate an egg. This was so pointless because we just pissed around and got bored out of our skulls.

    This was followed b sex ed in year 9 (aged 13), already some of us were aware of what goes on (especially the girls with older sisters - dunno why but . . . )[as they say you learn it by osmosis] and even then some of us were too young. We had the strictest and most impersonal teacher take it but we still pissed around so much that she was embaressed. Putting condoms on a boiling tube, yeah, that was funny, especially with some people asking for help (so many snide little comments). I got away with absolutely everything in that class as she was slightly embarressed and could not really hanndll it. In fact i think that even if external people came and did it they would still have trouble handling it.

    I was also pissed off that they spent so long telling us all about periods (the only useful knowledge i came out of the lessons with was that a girl was more sexually receptive just after? her period and i only kinda half remeber that.

    Sex education should really be more to parents, siblings and via osmosis, through magazines, television and the internet. The advice should be there, but it should be when you are bothered that you go out and research otherwise it is just time and money wasted as you are not ready and some children might feel forced (they know everyone else has had sex and now theres strict old Mrs teaching about it - its normal).

    The only effective part of the lesson was a zoom in on venereal deseases, the effects of STDs and crabs. The visual image of the crab was probably the most effective part.

    Sex Education is really not that smart a thing to inflict compulsorarily on schools, children need all the help they can get in their existing subjects, wthout having to take on board more information that they think is irrelevant. In addition, school is the wrong atmosphere to do it in, i mean if they tell you not to do something, you do not take it seriosuly, i mean its your teachers or someone they have hired.

    So it would be the wrong place to do it, done at the wrong time and of very little use. (and sex edducation is widespread and seems to be doing little, advertisign campaigns appear too have had more effect against STDs).
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.