The Socialistic Shit-Case

[his_girl_l]

[QUOTE=Thorne;767924]
And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.


As far as i know the concept of every life being sacred isn't unique to any political creed.

Before there were organised welfare states church run charities took care of people in extreme need. True, you might have been able to opt out, but until the 19th century there was enormous social pressure to be active in your local church and also to tithe - and those tithes helped look after people who had fallen on hard times.

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another? What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

I am not a socialist, but i really really don't think this argument is about politics anymore, if it ever was.

It is a huge leap to go from arguing that adults who can earn their own living shouldn't receive tax payer subsidy to arguing that some babies and children who are incapable of looking after themselves should be condemned because of the circumstances of their birth.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=lgirl;768338]

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another?

Absolutely! If one of those children is healthy and fit, with little or no physical defects; and the other child has severe physical problems, the kinds of problems which would result in multiple surgeries and years of intensive care to allow that child to live a life of pain and anguish, a life which is almost certainly going to be short and unproductive; then yes, one child has more value.

I have seen these kinds of defects, seen the amount of resources devoted to keeping children alive for just one more day, one more week. Children who should have died immediately after birth, who would never even leave the hospital. Some who had even been, finally, abandoned by their families because they were not going to survive, yet kept alive simply because medicine can keep them alive.

What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

In this kind of case, I would expect that my family, or hers, or both, would step in and take over the raising of my children. And if there is no family, then yes, the state would take over.

I'm not talking about genetic problems which may or may not appear later in someone's life, but genetic problems which appear at birth, physical and/or mental deformities which preclude a child from living any kind of meaningful life. Admittedly, there is a fine line there. Who decides. I don't claim to know the answers. I just know that there are serious problems with the system as it stands.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?

Absolutely! They deserve just as much chance as I was given by my parents, and as much chance as I was able to provide my children. Just don't expect me to subsidize their chances.

[Skyybird]

OK...so...we are here to debate why the teenage pregnancy rate in the UK is so high? Thats how I read the first post anyway.

I will give you the benefit of my experience, I work in this exact field and can tell you that it is rarely solely due to the financial remuneration offered by the government to support young girls in this situation.

I can tell you, it is about nothing more than sex.

Sex education in this country sucks big time. I have posted in a thread elsewhere about this and I said then, as I say now, sex is everywhere.

TV, Music, Newspapers, Clubs, you name it....everything is sold on it's intrinsic sexy value added appeal.

Teenage girls are no longer innocent. The generation their parents belong to have sealed their fate in opening the world up to being liberal and removing taboo's. We have all switched on our computers, tv's radios, opened our newspapers etc and invited sex into our lives. Our children no longer see sex as something adult.

Education in schools has pretty much irradicated the inclusion of anything other than basic sex education. Not enough time is given to focus on self repsect and relationships. We fill them full of the mechanics but fail to provide the complexities of life into it.

I joke you not...when my daughter became a woman, I told her in no uncertain terms she was now physically capable of bearing a child, she is 11. I also lightened the moment by telling her there should be no more sex!! It was a joke, She laughed rightly so, she is a mature young lady in the making and we speak freely about this subject because I truly believe to grow up understanding relationships is the key to making it past your teens without getting pregnant.

So...do we just let these girls get pregnant and not look after them? Do we let these innocent babies come into the world to be negelected, malnourished and to grow into carbon copies of their parents? I dont think so. I think we have the responsibility as a society to provide for them, both the mother and the child, who lets face it have no idea what they are getting into.

Do we not give them contraception and let them get pregnant repeatedly over time to repeat their own niaive mistakes? I agree that the injection may not be ideal, but it is the least forgettable type of contraception second to an IUD (coil) which is not recommended until a woman has had her first child. Until another form of contraception can be made available which is safe for young girls and which doesnt rely on the girl remebering everyday to take a pill, which itself isn't suitable to all women either, we have to concentrate on education.

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/...egnancy/about/

You may find this document helpful.

Just to clarify, the current benefit paid to young girls who have babies is the same as that which is paid to anyone who has a child at any age. The extra benefits are in order to make sure she has a place to live that is safe and clean for her and her childs health. Such places in my experience are rarely up to the task. Social services will not separate a mother and child until there is significant concern for the childs wellbeing. But that is a whole other story.