If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

Smidge

Delancey wrote: »

I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

Seems to me that she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

If she left school on finding out she was pregnant, she was a SW scrounger.

She instead tried to return to school and further her education and got a kick in the teeth for her trouble.

I personally commend her for trying to go back to school, which in anybody's opinion was the more difficult of the two options.

Nodin

mishkalucy wrote: »

Seems to me that she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

If she left school on finding out she was pregnant, she was a SW scrounger.

She instead tried to return to school and further her education and got a kick in the teeth for her trouble.

I personally commend her for trying to go back to school, which in anybody's opinion was the more difficult of the two options.

...indeed. It seems to me that far too little has changed in this country since the early/mid 80's in some quarters. "Which 80's" you might ask...which infuckingdeed.

MrVestek

If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!

languagenerd

Achilles wrote: »

If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!

Not in a Catholic school! :P

Morag

Achilles wrote: »

If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!

Not in a catholic school.

eviltwin

Well the holier than thou attitude of some of the posters here has saddened and scared me. I thought we left those attitudes behind long ago.

I can't understand the need to punish this girl by denying her an education. She only had a baby, no one died. We should applaud her for having goals.

prinz

languagenerd wrote: »

Not in a Catholic school! :P

Sharrow wrote: »

Not in a catholic school.

Don't know about ye but I got plenty of sex ed..... in "Catholic schools".

Cedrus

prinz wrote: »

....and deduct the value of the land that was provided by the religious etc etc etc. Like it or not, it's total rubbish to suggest that the tax payer paid 100% of the cost of establishing our primary and secondary education system.

Where do you think this valuable land was procured from? The parish priest's pocket?

The land was either donated by better off parishioners or bought with church collections from less well off parishioners right down to the widows pence which couldn't be afforded at all.

The national schools system was set up by the government in the early 1830s and were centrally funded and non denominational until Cardinal Cullen hijacked the system for fear of 'godlesness'.

Nodin

eviltwin wrote: »

Well the holier than thou attitude of some of the posters here has saddened and scared me. I thought we left those attitudes behind long ago.

I can't understand the need to punish this girl by denying her an education. She only had a baby, no one died. We should applaud her for having goals.

She HAD SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Worse still, SHE MAY HAVE ENJOYED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fluffybums

As for Roman Catholic ethos perhaps that principal should try reading the bible.

Mary was, after all, pregnant with Jesus outside marriage.

I suspect there would have been no problem with the baby's father attending a Roman Catholic ethos school.

Smidge

I always find it sad when these "so-called" catholics do things like this.
If these people were really true to their faith rather than the pulpit they would remember their teachings.

How about when Mary was turned away from the inn?

How about Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

I am not a practising Catholic but like most people of a certain age in this country was raised Catholic.

You don't need religion to tell you what is right to do and turning this girl away has just made her and her child's life infinitely harder.

Delancey

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

I met a middle-aged woman recently who was trying to find a new home for the family dog ( had him for 8 years ) , her reason ? Well her 16 or 17 year old daughter was expecting and she didn't want a dog in the house along with a baby. I had to bite my tongue to not tell her that when I was that age any girls I knew that found themselves in trouble were the ones that got kicked out of home !
Not suggesting that is appropriate of course but have we moved too far to the ' liberal ' agenda ?

languagenerd

prinz wrote: »

Don't know about ye but I got plenty of sex ed..... in "Catholic schools".

I definitely didn't! The only sex ed we ever got was the Reproductive System chapter in the JC Science book. We had time listed on the timetable for SPHE/RSE but we just used those classes to do our homework after 2nd year (before that, we used them to talk about bullying or arranged sponsored walks).

eviltwin

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

I met a middle-aged woman recently who was trying to find a new home for the family dog ( had him for 8 years ) , her reason ? Well her 16 or 17 year old daughter was expecting and she didn't want a dog in the house along with a baby. I had to bite my tongue to not tell her that when I was that age any girls I knew that found themselves in trouble were the ones that got kicked out of home !
Not suggesting that is appropriate of course but have we moved too far to the ' liberal ' agenda ?

Do you want to return to the days of shame when girls were hidden away and their babies put up for adoption? Have you learned nothing?

micropig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I always find it sad when these "so-called" catholics do things like this.
If these people were really true to their faith rather than the pulpit they would remember their teachings.

How about when Mary was turned away from the inn?

How about Jesus and Mary Magdalene?

I am not a practising Catholic but like most people of a certain age in this country was raised Catholic.

You don't need religion to tell you what is right to do and turning this girl away has just made her and her child's life infinitely harder.

She got an education in another school. She also got a home tutor when she was in late pregnancy. She was not denied an education.

She did not match the criteria for this school. Why is she so determined to go to this particular school, especially half way through the leaving cert cycle? Her only reason is because her friends are there. She had only 6th year to go, she could have just knuckled down to here studies in a school sympathetic to her predicament.

languagenerd

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

As I said a few pages back, there is a huge difference between (a) accepting that some teenagers get pregnant, and (b) accepting that it is the norm that teenagers should get pregnant.

The vast majority of people will agree that teenagers should not have babies. Of course it's "undesirable"*! (in most cases anyway - there are surely some teenagers who are ready to have kids, but for most of them it would be better to wait). But accepting and helping a young girl who does find herself in that situation is NOT the same thing as encouraging teenagers to have babies.


Why should they feel shame?!


*I don't particularly like this term - I'm using your words - but I mean that many teenagers will not be emotionally equipped or financially able to raise a baby. And even those who are equipped will probably find it very hard and stressful. But that doesn't make it "wrong", it's just not circumstancially perfect.

Nodin

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?(...........)' agenda ?

I'll be only too glad to engage with you on that. However I'd like to clear up this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78434271&postcount=540
before it gets lost in the melee......

efb

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

I met a middle-aged woman recently who was trying to find a new home for the family dog ( had him for 8 years ) , her reason ? Well her 16 or 17 year old daughter was expecting and she didn't want a dog in the house along with a baby. I had to bite my tongue to not tell her that when I was that age any girls I knew that found themselves in trouble were the ones that got kicked out of home !
Not suggesting that is appropriate of course but have we moved too far to the ' liberal ' agenda ?

We need some kind of home for these girls and the babies given to good God fearing childless couples....

gypsy_rose

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

I met a middle-aged woman recently who was trying to find a new home for the family dog ( had him for 8 years ) , her reason ? Well her 16 or 17 year old daughter was expecting and she didn't want a dog in the house along with a baby. I had to bite my tongue to not tell her that when I was that age any girls I knew that found themselves in trouble were the ones that got kicked out of home !
Not suggesting that is appropriate of course but have we moved too far to the ' liberal ' agenda ?

No. No far enough, looking at this thread. Her having a baby is really no one else's business but her own. Typical Irish nosiness as always.

Smidge

Delancey wrote: »

What is to be society's ' moral compass ' when it comes to teenage pregnancy ?
It seems to me that we have all become totally immersed in the view that our past treatment of the matter was utterly backward/dickensian/guilt ridden , etc.
Now to question or criticise this liberal consensus is to invite the wrath of hordes down upon oneself - now call me an old-fashioned git but children having children no longer seems to be viewed as undesirable - in otherwords there is no shame attached .

I met a middle-aged woman recently who was trying to find a new home for the family dog ( had him for 8 years ) , her reason ? Well her 16 or 17 year old daughter was expecting and she didn't want a dog in the house along with a baby. I had to bite my tongue to not tell her that when I was that age any girls I knew that found themselves in trouble were the ones that got kicked out of home !
Not suggesting that is appropriate of course but have we moved too far to the ' liberal ' agenda ?

I'm not in favour of young girls going out and getting pregnant, by no means.
But lets be realistic here. It happens.
What galls me is she TRIED to go back to school and continue her education in the and was cast the harlot.
I have a friend who got pregnant at roughly the same age and was still in school. We are not talking recent as her "child" is now 23!!
She was allowed to continue her education and as a consequence all these years latter has a good job, own home and wonderful family.

Would this have happened if she had been fecked out of school????

humberklog

gypsy_rose wrote: »

Typical Irish nosiness as always.

So much so that there's even a thread on-line about it with people commenting about it.

And whatnot.

Smidge

micropig wrote: »

She got an education in another school. She also got a home tutor when she was in late pregnancy. She was not denied an education.

She did not match the criteria for this school. Why is she so determined to go to this particular school, especially half way through the leaving cert cycle? Her only reason is because her friends are there. She had only 6th year to go, she could have just knuckled down to here studies in a school sympathetic to her predicament.

Was this the school she was in previous to getting pregnant?

eviltwin

So a girl gets pregnant she can't go to school. She can't have an abortion. She claims welfare and is forever classed a scrounger and slapper by the ones who put obstacles in her way in the first place. She might as well jump in front of a bus.

LH Pathe

I blame 'Music' TV. Or are they just adapting to what's trendy now

I smell a Teen Mom / 16 And Pregnant: Abortion Special. MTV UK.

PrincessLola

efb wrote: »

We need some kind of home for these girls and the babies given to good God fearing childless couples....

Perhaps they could be taught to do chores in these homes too? You know, teach them a work ethic.:pac:

Of course no need to lock up the fathers of the babies. God forbid we deny teenage fathers an education. :rolleyes:

You would think from this thread that teenage girls get pregnant all on their own!

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

So a girl gets pregnant she can't go to school. She can't have an abortion. She claims welfare and is forever classed a scrounger and slapper by the ones who put obstacles in her way in the first place. She might as well jump in front of a bus.

Let's not go too far now. It was one school, and a school that IMO shouldn't even qualify as a school.

languagenerd

micropig wrote: »

She had only 6th year to go, she could have just knuckled down to here studies in a school sympathetic to her predicament.

That's exactly what she did... That doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against by the other school though, or that the other school was wrong.

gypsy_rose

humberklog wrote: »

So much so that there's even a thread on-line about it with people commenting about it.

And whatnot.

Well yeah, obviously, cos it was on LiveLine, the Last Word, etc. It's only become a big deal because of that judgemental bollocks of a principal in the first place.

Smidge

PrincessLola wrote: »

Perhaps they could be taught to do chores in these homes too? You know, teach them a work ethic.:pac:

Of course no need to lock up the fathers of the babies. God forbid we deny teenage fathers an education. :rolleyes:

You would think from this thread that teenage girls get pregnant all on their own!

I agree and when they claim OPFP they will really prove us all right that they were loose women all along.

eviltwin

languagenerd wrote: »

That's exactly what she did... That doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against by the other school though, or that the other school was wrong.

The issue isn't this girl so much as future girls who hopefully now won't be treated like dirt in future.