Religious idiots... shut up

[_GoodK]

Here is my question once again: Where do you see "expensive"?

Well, let's look at your proposal. Remember, this is supposed to be a better alternative than giving out birth control to kids who need it.

1. Begin education in nutrition, child development, child rearing practices, and sex education early on in say, the middle school years and repeat these units of education through high school.

Are you suggesting adding more teachers to the faculty in order to teach these classes? Will they be volunteers? Are we removing other curriculum in order to allow for these classes? Or do we have to make the school day longer to accommodate these other classes?

Instead of give out birth control, you want us to hire teachers to teach nutrition and child development in middle and high schools. Ok.

I see "expense" as one of many reasons why this plan is not a better alternative than giving kids birth control who ask for it.

2. Teach parenting skills (on top of the aforementioned courses) in High School, a course designed to span all 4 years.

Again, how much will it cost to hire these teachers? Do all kids have to take these courses? See the response to number 1. Are these classes supposed to deter sexual activity, or what? I don't see how these "courses" relate in any way to unwanted pregnancies.

3. Make community service required in the form of a set number of hours for High Schoolers working in child care settings as lab work to reinforce the courses they're taking in lecture form, giving them hands on experiences with infants, toddlers and preschoolers that would include investing in their day to day care and learning.

Again, how much will it cost to hire the staff to supervise this sort of thing?

Why do kids need to learn about child care and have hands on experience with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers if they don't want to have kids? Are you saying they should have to learn it regardless of if they plan on having children?

Forgive me, but the purpose of birth control is not to be a better parent. It is to not be a parent at all. Remember?

Here is my question again: Why would child development courses help someone who doesn't want to have a kid?

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

Take a look at the next post I made to you and see if there's anything about the above post you want to change. I'll check back in a bit to see if there are any changes or new challenges to my proposal.

[_Jersey Girl]

Also, GoodK, please note that I haven't removed free birth control from the proposal. Check back here in a bit...

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

Take a look at the next post I made to you and see if there's anything about the above post you want to change. I'll check back in a bit to see if there are any changes or new challenges to my proposal.

I saw your post. There are no new challenges. I don't believe for a minute your plan won't cost anything. And it includes forcing kids to learn about "child rearing" in school. That is ridiculous. Listen, just leave the rest of society alone regarding birth control. Let them choose what they want to do. Your way includes forcing kids to learn about parenthood. I don't care if they learn parenthood. I don't want them to parents if they aren't ready. I don't care if some of my taxes go to the morning after pill for some 16 year old girl.

Still waiting for your answer to this:

Here is my question again: Why would child development courses help someone who doesn't want to have a kid?

Anyways, I'm pretty much through going around in circles about birth control and what a kid is. There are many other problems with respecting religious fairy tales, especially collectively as a society.

[_Moniker]

I don't even understand why this thread devolved into dealing with teens and contraceptives.

What do you mean by "devolved"? The exchanges between myself and GoodK were based on this line:

Kevorkian spent 8 years in the joint, and kids can't get birth control because of you idiots.

From GoodK's Opening Post.

That is to say, these exchanges are one of many subtopics that have been taken up for discussion based on the OP.

That line was a part of the general notion that those with prescriptions can not have them filled because of religious morality from pharmacists. GoodK came back later in the thread and cleared up precisely what he was talking about and provided links.

If a teenager (or whatever age) is given a prescription LEGALLY they should not be turned away because of morality, imho.

Yet, I'll reply to the idea of kids getting "free" (of course they're not "free" since someone is paying for them) contraceptives in school, too. If a young person is responsible enough to understand that there are dangers associated with sex and they seek contraceptives then they should be applauded. I can't see why anyone would be upset with anyone being responsible about putting off parenthood for any reason, whatsoever. That there are those that think no one should have contraceptives (pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions!) shows that this goes beyond merely interest in people being responsible and delves off into morality. I can't understand why anyone would be against a young person, or young adult, that seeks to make responsible decisions about planning for parenthood. We need more teens to understand how to plan for it and part of that is birth control. I don't care if they're having sex -- I want them to do it responsibly.

Just a few weeks ago, on this board, someone mentioned to me that I should consider not having sex outside of marriage (an early 30's woman) 'cause I might get pregnant even with contraceptives. I was shocked then remembered what board I'm on. As much as some deny it deals with morality they really enjoy the idea of people being punished for sex and if we remove contraceptives then there's the punishment 'cause you're gonna get pregnant. Sex shouldn't be a punishment!

[_beastie]

What kinds of additional funds are you thinking of, beastie?

The additional funds that will be needed to manage and supervise the teens doing all the community service. You're talking about every teen being required to do community service with children. How do you think this will happen? Who will arrange it? Who will supervise the teens? It would have to be managed through the schools, through a new curriculum. That doesn't just require funds for teaching and coordinating with the community, but for the development of the curriculum.


Personally, I wish every adult would be required to do a two year stint of service in local schools, for many reasons. But it's pie in the sky. It ain't happening.

I also wish we had proactive, fully funded centers to help with pregnancies, infants, child-care, in high poverty centers. I'd like to see our society use some preventative measures instead of constantly running behind fixing problems - or trying to fix problems. But I'm cynically realistic about our society's real commitment to children and to eradicating poverty. I don't think there's much of a commitment at all.

[_harmony]

What kinds of additional funds are you thinking of, beastie?

The additional funds that will be needed to manage and supervise the teens doing all the community service. You're talking about every teen being required to do community service with children. How do you think this will happen? Who will arrange it? Who will supervise the teens? It would have to be managed through the schools, through a new curriculum. That doesn't just require funds for teaching and coordinating with the community, but for the development of the curriculum.


Personally, I wish every adult would be required to do a two year stint of service in local schools, for many reasons. But it's pie in the sky. It ain't happening.

I also wish we had proactive, fully funded centers to help with pregnancies, infants, child-care, in high poverty centers. I'd like to see our society use some preventative measures instead of constantly running behind fixing problems - or trying to fix problems. But I'm cynically realistic about our society's real commitment to children and to eradicating poverty. I don't think there's much of a commitment at all.

Just ask Gadianton. It's everyone for himself in this rat race.

[_harmony]

Parents appear to be unwilling to invest in the psychological well being of their children (and the greater society as a whole) and would rather literally throw a condom at their "kid" and tell them to get screwed, is what I'm getting at here.

That is exactly what GoodK is advocating: throwing condoms at teenagers. Don't bother to teach them any sort of morality, just throw condoms at them so they can go screw another teenager who also suffers from an exaggerated sense of entitlement to the tax dollar trough. Self-control, self-management, and maturity are immaterial; give them a condom and tell them to go use it.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

I'm just going to leave these exchanges in quotes and reply in bold text, something on the order of what Roger did with my post above. I'll have to emphasize some words in CAPS where I would have normally used bold text for emphasis.

Here is my question once again: Where do you see "expensive"?

Well, let's look at your proposal. Remember, this is supposed to be a better alternative than giving out birth control to kids who need it.

No, it's supposed to be a better alternative than giving out FREE birth control to kids who want it...not need it. You wording here suggests that kids "need" to have sex when that is not the case. Kids don't "need" birth control any more than kids "need" to have sex.

1. Begin education in nutrition, child development, child rearing practices, and sex education early on in say, the middle school years and repeat these units of education through high school.

Are you suggesting adding more teachers to the faculty in order to teach these classes? Will they be volunteers? Are we removing other curriculum in order to allow for these classes? Or do we have to make the school day longer to accommodate these other classes?

The courses would be units contained in already existing classes taught by teachers already in place. If additional staff were needed, they could be accessed via a vocational school within the school district of one exists and if not, staff could be accessed via unpaid externships.

Instead of give out birth control, you want us to hire teachers to teach nutrition and child development in middle and high schools. Ok.

We already HAVE teachers who teach low level nutrition in our school districts, at least my local school distict. Child development courses could be part of already existing psychology or science curriculum in High School. Those programs , including human development, are already in place in the school district that I feed in to. I don't know about other school districts. Nutrition education is sorely lacking in our society or haven't you noticed the number of American's hogging down Big Mac's? This could be part of the PE course as well. Our local HS includes, for example, yoga and aerobics training. Nutrition would compliment that training.[/ b]

I see "expense" as one of many reasons why this plan is not a better alternative than giving kids birth control who ask for it.

[b]I understand that you want Uncle Sam to open his wallet and hand kids something for nothing while I pay for it. That fact has already been established. Why don't we hand out credit cards to kids who ask for them? Should Uncle give every kid who wants it a line of credit and what would that teach the kid?

2. Teach parenting skills (on top of the aforementioned courses) in High School, a course designed to span all 4 years.

Again, how much will it cost to hire these teachers? Do all kids have to take these courses? See the response to number 1. Are these classes supposed to deter sexual activity, or what? I don't see how these "courses" relate in any way to unwanted pregnancies.

Parenting classes are of benefit to a number of career fields. I regularly teach nursing students, psych students, law enforcement students (just off the top of my head) and early education teachers in my classrooms every semester. Learning how to interact with children is of benefit to everyone whether or not they intend to become parents or not. You understand the concept of pediatrics? Child advocacy? Social work? Domestic violence? Counselling services? All of these events/situations can involve children. Learning about child development could only enhance those services when children become part of the professional picture.
I don't think I've fully answered your questions, I'll come back to it another time.

3. Make community service required in the form of a set number of hours for High Schoolers working in child care settings as lab work to reinforce the courses they're taking in lecture form, giving them hands on experiences with infants, toddlers and preschoolers that would include investing in their day to day care and learning.

Again, how much will it cost to hire the staff to supervise this sort of thing?

Hire staff to supervise what sort of thing? Do you mean in the early childhood setting? Early childhood professionals would train and supervise students in their classes. I do this every semester in my own classroom. The students would increase the child:adult ratio in classrooms thus, increasing the level of quality in our already existing programs. How about early Head Start or Head Start , Migrant Head Start for those who speak another language? With Fed funding for these programs on the decline, added student staff could make the difference in these much needed programs.

Why do kids need to learn about child care and have hands on experience with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers if they don't want to have kids? Are you saying they should have to learn it regardless of if they plan on having children?

I think I already answered that when I discussed various professional fields that include interaction with children. I think that I could go about 4 different ways from here just on this one topic. In addition, while a 16 year old might not plan to have children at age 16, those plans will likely change in the future. You brought up the chicken egg, I'm bringing real children into the picture.

Forgive me, but the purpose of birth control is not to be a better parent. It is to not be a parent at all. Remember?

Yes, it is. I haven't suggested that students be taught how to "be a better parent". I'm suggesting that they earn what it is they want, learn useful life skills in the process and put something back into Uncle's wallet for the "free" birth control they would like to have access to.

Here is my question again: Why would child development courses help someone who doesn't want to have a kid?

I already answered that.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

I want to give you a personal reply however, if you're reading here, I'd like you to look at my post to GoodK above for it includes some of the answers to the questions that you've asked of me. I'll be back...