Jvstice Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadYorick Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I think that better education would be more effective then sterilization. Since girls should know from a very young age to wear a condom or take the pill. Sterilization should only be a last resort. Because the girls know that they aren't going to get pregnant when they are teenagers. But they don't know life skills that could be important when they are adults and they get pregnant when they are in college or working 10 hours a day. Or even worse they continue to do unprotected sex without thinking of the dangers of pregnancy and contract an STD (Or STI as they are called now). With better education the girls can actually learn the dangers of pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Because the girls know that they aren't going to get pregnant when they are teenagers. Huh? Girls can go through puberty as young as 8 (in rare cases). As soon as they do they are physically capable of becoming pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem. You're bloody kidding me right? Personal liberties be damned so the government can play chaperone to teenage girls without their consent? What's next, mandating that everyone must have a state-approved official holding your hands as you cross the street to ensure not only your safety, but that you also do not jaywalk? Ludicrous. I should also point out that that link isn't so much an article reporting on some sort of scientific discovery, but more a self-righteous editorial rant that is supremely flawed in several lines of reasoning. The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous? Removing the fear of being pregnant and all the challenges it presents would be completely and utterly stupid. If the author of the article wants to be the moral police, then surely there are better avenues to advocate than this ridiculous idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadYorick Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Huh? Girls can go through puberty as young as 8 (in rare cases). As soon as they do they are physically capable of becoming pregnant. I am talking about the side effects of sterilization. Plus this is an excellent example of why education at a younger age is more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Maybe parents should start parenting. I think that would solve a lot of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthJebus05 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Aren't you all forgetting that this might increase the number of rapes? And mentioned in the above posts, this will increase under age sex. Bad idea, whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Why would it affect the number of rapes in any way? I don't think the rapists of the world are thinking 'omg must not rape, might have to pay child support!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Aren't you all forgetting that this might increase the number of rapes? Um, no. Generally rapists are more concerned about being caught than they are on making child support payments. (Edit: Damn you, Inyri! Use my remarks, will you...) I seriously doubt this would impact the number of rapes one way or another. They're rarely even done for sexual reasons in the first place. Bad idea, whoever thought of it should be ashamed of themselves. What? You think in decades where teen sex has become increasingly problematic that this person was the only one to propose mandatory sterilization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I agree with Inyri. It won't increase rapes. It will however cause a larger number of teens to feel more free about sex. This may in fact increase STD transmission. That is a far worse problem in my estimation. Lower fear of pregnancy, increased sexual activity, lower reason for protection, increased spread of STD's. [sarcasm]Oh yes this is a great idea, I think every country should get behind this[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous? Only fallacious if you disregard her observation that they're doing it anyway w/o the benefit of sterilization, thus there's likely to be no/little impact on the desire to pursue recreational sex in the first place. However, I would tend to agree that if you remove the negative incentives for doing things, people are less likely to be deterred from trying them. Still, given the number of girls/young women having babies they can't support financially (nevermind emotionally), a temporary sterilization req for qualifying for govt aide is, in our increasingly eroticized and secular society, a reasonable step. No matter how much education you give people, there are always going to be those that disregard it on purpose or in the heat of the moment. Frankly, if you can't keep your legs closed, I see no reason I should have to provide money to support your child (or subsidize your abortion for that matter) through my taxes. Frankly, this problem doesn't lend itself to simple solutions. Merely saying that parents should exercise more parental responsibility is as naive as saying "just say no" will stop it. Children, especially by the time they are capable of becoming sexually active, probably have as much or more outside influence impacting their decision making as any input they get from their parents. What? You think in decades where teen sex has become increasingly problematic that this person was the only one to propose mandatory sterilization? Wasn't there talk of putting welfare mothers on Norplant in the not too distant past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balderdash Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is. The Mail is a major national newspaper in the UK, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The most obvious and glaring one is if teenage girls were sterilized for five or so years, wouldn't that make them more likely to go out and be promiscuous? Rofl, exactly. In all honesty... I'm neither a teenager or a girl, but if I was sterile I would imagine I'd loosen up some myself... STDs be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 An excellent idea. I hope this idea carries over to many other countries. This will very likely help lower abortion rates... At least some country is doing something about this problem. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight Proper sex-education would be far more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Something about the way that entire article was written makes me wonder how serious a publication that is. The Mail is traditionally meant to be read by wives of people who read the Times. More generally, it's a paranoid joke which no-one of middling intelligence or above reads. It's also significant to note that this suggestion comes from the Cabinet Nobody with the silliest name. In all seriousness, if we paid attention to every rubbish or ridiculous idea that the Blair/Brown government came up with, we'd be up to our elbows in 'Huh?'s. Just look at the idea that we could abolish the Lord Chancellor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The Mail is a major national newspaper in the UK, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. And for those that are not up to speed on this, Its the same company that spawned Fox News Channel, and it's major affiliate is SkyNews. I want to say they also happen to be the ones that own "Weekly World News" but I may be wrong on that. I know they do own a tabloid with that reputation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 With better education the girls can actually learn the dangers of pregnancy.OK, so now I'm curious. What dangers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I don't believe i've embarrassed myself in any way, those of you who thought my reaction was bad. If these girls won't learn to control themselves, even after plenty of sex-ed, then someone should take charge and stop the problem. This is for teenage girls, not adult women. The rights of children and teenagwers are different than the rights of adults. Sex-ed will help, but there's bound to be tons of teenage girls who simply don't care and aren't going to be careful. This is not immoralyl takign away their rights- Teenage girls aren't even physically meant to have chilren properly at their age! Yes, the have puberty in teenage years, which allows them to get pregnant, but their body is not fully developed enough to have the pregnancy correctly. miscarries, STI's, etc, etc, happen with teenage pregnancy much more often than with adults. This problem won't go away by simply having more sex-ed. It's goign to keep happening. More abortions, more ruined and messed lives because teenage girls weren't careful, unless if soemthing is done. Yes, sterilization isn't perfected yet though, so this idea shoudln't be done until it is so that the side-effects of it removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 To those who somehow think this is a 'good idea': 1. Tell me exactly how UK will pay for the sterilization. 2. Why not boys? Why only girls? 3. Why up to 17? 4. What about girls who get adverse side-effects because of sterilization? 5. Sterlization means that people will be less likely to use safe sex. They're sterilized, right? So when the sterlization wears off, they will not be able to do safe sex, meaning teenage pregenacy may increase. 6. Speaking of 'safe sex', what about STDs? 7. What about female monks? Why do they need to be sterilized if they already don't like sex? 8. What if I want to have a baby? EDIT: 9. Have you adequatly learnt why previous 'comulsory sterilization' programs failed, and how best you can solve the errors associated with those programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 What happened to the males being responsible, too? They can't bother themselves to put on a condom? Or the boys don't care about it because after one or a few nights they're going to move on to someone else, and the gov't can take care of the girl if she happens to get pregnant so they don't have to? It takes two to tango. The chance of the girl getting pregnant drops dramatically if the boy takes some responsibility for preventing pregnancy, too. If you're going to sterilize girls (which I think is silly), then you should give all the guys a little snip, too--after all, it's now reversible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee Hoon Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 What a sexist article >.> It was a moral issue but the stigma was born out of necessity: a desperate attempt to stop girls from doing what came naturally until a father and a home could be provided. Boys have always wanted to have sex and notch up "scores" on the bedpost. So it's ok for the boys to boink around as much as they want, since they won't be the ones getting pregnant? :/ @Arc, make the teenage boys control *their* raging hormones, then you can comment all you want about the girls. Why don't we just sterilize all the randy males around, hm? After all, lonely ovums (read:eggs) won't produce any babies>.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadYorick Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 OK, so now I'm curious. What dangers? There are a lot of dangers with childbirth. Firstly the fact that you could die with child birth. The baby could come out feet first. They may have to cut you open to get the baby out. Plus the fact that is all one of the most painful things a human being can go through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The risk of death in pregnancy/childbirth for a teen is really quite low. The risk of a breech birth is very low, and it's easy to detect so that the baby can either be turned around or mom given a c-section to prevent potential complications. I've had 2 c-sections, and while it's not on my top ten list of favorite things to do and it is major surgery, it's not like I didn't have anesthesia when they 'cut me open to get the baby out'. The anesthesiologists were all very vigilant in making sure any pain or problems were prevented in the first place or dealt with immediately. Yes, childbirth hurts, but you know, we can deal with that, too. Thank God for epidurals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 There are a lot of dangers with childbirth. Firstly the fact that you could die with child birth. The baby could come out feet first. They may have to cut you open to get the baby out. Plus the fact that is all one of the most painful things a human being can go throughYou know, that was a rather rhetorical question. Also, those things you list are dangers of a birth, not pregnancy. Plus, I'd blatantly state that only 0.1% percent, if at all, of the abortions around the world happen due to "the dangers" coming with the birth. Now refocus that on teenage abortion and we are on par with *zero* percent. And yes, a birth is painful, but painfulness is hardly a danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.