Nov
19
authorities to press girls as young as 13 to have contraceptive jabs, which can make girls infertile for upto three months, a policy that has sparked outcry in the country.
The Labour government has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for soaring under-age pregnancy rates, which was the highest in Europe. Now British health and education ministers have ordered council and health chief executives to increase the uptake of “long-acting” contraception in teen pregnancy “hot spots”.
Times of India
Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
By providing such injections, UK government may get some success in controlling birth rate, but what about the rise in infections such cases will cause?
British kids are having sex at very young age, who is responsible for this? Who should address this?
Schools? Government?
There is a rise in teenage pregnancy and it is the government which suffers if a lot of teenage girls want to have a baby. Government suffers because it needs to pay for the girl.
Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.
The socialistic government want to help the single mothers. But now, every other teenage girl want to be mother because she gets incentives for being a mother and their families gets monetary profits.
So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
It remained the idea of all socialist schools, be it religious or political.
The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one; Jesus Christ is the epitome for that. Political socialism exclaimed sacrifice of the hard worker for the lazy one. Marx was epitome for that.
And UK government pays the teenage single mothers on behalf of the tax payers’ money which is sacrifice a honest worker does.
Socialism never works and it always causes havoc and it is right what is happening in Britain. While trying to help the single mothers, they actually provided incentives for every teenage girl to be a single mother. And now the government is suspicious about the situation.
The government is obviously not worried about the girls anymore, it is more worried about the money it has to give for the single mothers.
The experts say that it will promote promiscuity and those injections and implants will not protect against the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease. Some health experts also say that the drugs are unsuitable for girls who are still growing.
Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant” and that attitude will obviously be dangerous because those injections just cannot provide safety against the sexually transmitted diseases.
Can schools and government address the problem?
They are constantly failing in doing so.
And why should a school or government be responsible for a kid if he/she is promiscuous or irresponsible towards his/her sexual behaviour?
In the case of Britain, the government is responsible. It is a socialist government.
The parents hold minimal rights over their kids.
They even cannot smack them.
A father was arrested by police and locked in a cell overnight after smacking his son’s bottom.
Mark Frearson’s young son had wandered off alone after dark while they were at a Plymouth shopping centre together.
Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy’s mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once.
But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
BBC News
The government has tried everything to renounce the freedom, parents feel difficult (almost impossible) to control and discipline their own kids and teach them some rational moralities and attitudes regarding life.
Government and schools find it difficult to teach students about the bad effects of teenage sexual escapades and pregnancies.
According to figures from five of England’s 152 primary care trusts, girls as young as 13 have been administered injections and implants.
What will be the definition of molestation when even the girls of age 13 are being given anti-pregnancy injections?
I reiterate, socialism is the cause for all this, and responsible is the government.
Related Posts
323 viewsWP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
9 Responses to “Is Socialism a Bad Word?”
Leave a Reply
RINZU SUSAN RAJAN Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pmwell…its sick…when the govt retorts to measures like these to curb something sick that is happening…its a temporary solution not a stable one…
i had heard that long ago in china,the govt had retorted to fixing a “one child” policy in the country…
as u said the govt is responsible for suh sickening acts…
awesome stufff
sd Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 3:28 amIt is a sick situation when you’re not allowed to discipline your own child because you’ll be arrested/prosecuted/fined by a ‘big brother nanny state’.
Of course children are running wild on the streets. They know that their parents are not allowed to stop them, and even the police are curbed in their powers to arrest minors and hold them in cells.
Sometimes, packs of ‘feral youths’ as they are called in the UK roam around streets like some street gang in the US and cause such violence and fear in the locality. People are often stabbed/attacked/abused in their own road, or homes, by kids that have no fear of being caught because of the laws stopping the correct treatment of such behaviour.
It’s right to say that there is a limit on what the state is responsible for, and that parent’s are ultimately responsible for what their kids end up as. However, if the laws themselves stop parents from acting then what is to be done?
Also, I personally support the idea that parents should be fined significant amounts of money every time their child is caught as being regularly absent from school or committing crimes. This would wake a lot of parents up to taking responsibility. After all, money is the most important thing (to many it seems nowadays)
Unpretentious Diva Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 7:35 amI am sure, you wanted to type Uk in stead of US.
By the way, how can you support monetary fine on parents if the kids don’t attend schools or get involved in crimes? You know, parents are not even allowed to shout at their kids. They have no power, now if they try to discipline, police will arrest them, and if they let kids free, you want them to be fined.
What will the parents do then? I guess they will abort any idea ever came in their mind to be parents. Such acts will cause negative birth rate in UK, not only that, it will create an environment which promotes ill-habits, immorality and havoc.
First step UK parents needs is freedom to grow their children as they Intend to. Even they need the right to HomeSchooling!
renegade_division Says:
November 21st, 2008 at 9:47 am@sd said:
There is absolutely no moral justification for punishing one individual for the actions of another individual, no matter what the relation between them is.
If Sathya Sai Baba tells his follower to kill someone the guilt is still of the follower because he chose to follow the instructions of his Guru.
sd Says:
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm@unpretentious
>First step UK parents needs is freedom to grow their children as >they Intend to. Even they need the right to HomeSchooling!
Yes I fully agree with you. This nanny state nonsense has to end.
However, there is also a significant number of people now who actually learn to exploit the system. I don’t know if you are aware but in the UK, underage parents are in many cases eligable for local council support for childcare and even housing. There have been many cases recently where young people have chosen to actually keep a child because of the apparrent benefits given freely to them for doing this. Nevermind the fact that it’s illegal and underage! Depending on which source you take, sometime this is encouraged by parents who do not want to foot the bill for all of this!
There would also be a rise in the reported numbers of parents that are being prosecuted for neglecting children. These cases are often referred to as ‘home alone’ cases where the parents choose to go off on holiday or elsewhere (ie not necessarily as there is no other choice) and leave the child at home to fend for itself.
Hence my comment about parents being forced to take responsibility for their actions, and what happens to their kids!
Personally I believe that if you want to be a parent then you take full responsibility for the child’s welfare and it’s behaviour at least until it reaches an age where it is legally recognised as able to make it’s own decisions.
Even if you look at it from a moral or religious view, then the way you bring up your child has a massive influence on how they behave in later life. This teaching is mainly the responsibility of the parent, in my opinion. The government and schools may contribute as further information sources, but ultimately it’s down to the parents themselves.
Hence, again, responsibility is required. Otherwise if you’re saying let the child take it’s own responsibility from day 1, then how are we different from animals?
sd Says:
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm@renegade_division
Yes, you’re right that an individual has to take responsibility for themselves, generally speaking.
However, I think that in this particular discussion we are talking about the parent-child bond, which I think is a very different thing to a teacher-child bond and the leader-follower bond, as you’ve mentioned.
Of course, if you’re an adult and recognised by the law as being capable of taking responsibility for yourself, then it’s never any justification to say ‘but I was told to do it’ after committing some ridiculous act of violence, harm etc. As a human being and adult you are expected by god, law and general morals (in my opinion anyway) to exercise some personal judgement and decide whether to commit an action or not.
However, what I’m saying above is not that the parent told the child to do anything… but that the parent did not complete their duty to properly educate their children in morals, right and wrong, decent behaviour.
You’ll argue that right and wrong is relative (as Unpretentious has before) but would you agree that a child will pick up and learn behaviours from the people around them, especially parents, and if the parents commit indecent or incorrect acts then the child will automatically take this as acceptable (at least until they learn otherwise for themselves at some later age)?
In my view it is the parents’ responsibility to try and teach and explain concepts such as fairness and decency and good behaviour to their children. This can be done without violence etc and it must be done early on. Hence our problem with feral packs of youths etc is worse, in my view, partly because parents are not trying to instill their values early enough…
There are many other reasons too, including the fact that the nanny state will lay down laws to stop parents from raising their kids properly, but will also have convenient laws to protect the same youths from prosecution because by law, they are underage and not capable of taking responsibility!!!
Chandria Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pmThis is the original artical that the Indian Times used for their story. Is their anywhere that say that people have to take the pill in this manner? Its say’s to be considered as option, but they still need to test if it sutiable to be used by that person. The pill has many differant forms either male hormones or female ones or a bit of both and like any medician it can have very bad side affects, )this i beleive was originally used in mental health,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo_Provera) and with this form of controception one they inject you they can remove it and the affects can last longer then the 3 months’ and the injection does not protect from Sti’s and with things like Aids running rampent. Education is the only way forwards http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7684810.stm
Here we admit their is a problem and we are trying to fix it, but their are countries where the problem is worse we just have too look at the Aids figures.
Teen pregancies figures are easy to hide. At least we are not burying our heads in the sand and say it don’t happen here. I wonder if we put in a google search and see devolping countries and Aids figures in younger adult what results we will get.
Chandria Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pmhis is the original artical that the Indian Times used for their story. Is their anywhere that say that people have to take the pill in this manner? Its say’s to be considered as option, but they still need to test if it sutiable to be used by that person. The pill has many differant forms either male hormones or female ones or a bit of both and like any medician it can have very bad side affects)this i beleive was originally used in mental health, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo_Provera) and with this form of controception one they inject you they can remove it and the affects can last longer then the 3 months’ and the injection does not protect from Sti’s and with things like Aids running rampent. Education is the only way forwards http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7684810.stm
Here we admit their is a problem and we are trying to fix it, but their are countries where the problem is worse we just have too look at the Aids figures. Teen pregancies figures are easy to hide. At least we are not burying our heads in the sand and say it don’t happen here. I wonder if we put in a google search and see devolping countries and Aids figures in younger adult what results we will get.Or even young girls who are forced into marraiges at young age, get pregant and then when things go wrong because they have no medical help and are just left to die
Chandria Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 6:55 pmndian police investigate underage wedding Police in the northern Indian state of Rajasthan say they are investigating reports that more than 50 children were illegally married in a mass wedding on Saturday. Local newspapers reported that the children, some of whom were less than a year old, were married in a colourful ceremony in a village close to the city of Jodhpur. Marriages of girls under the age of 18 and boys under 21 are illegal in India. But correspondents say forced child weddings are still common, especially in rural areas of Rajasthan. A report published by UNICEF earlier this year said millions of children, especially girls, were forced into underage marriage because of poverty, tradition or their families desire to protect them from unwanted sexual advances