Teen Mum Sisters Get £30k

RuggieBear

vibe666 wrote:

thanks sleepy.

rant time again:
i'm really getting fed up with all these people saying that you can't do this and that to kids discipline wise, but nobody seems to have noticed that with the falling levels of discipline comes a rise in youth violence, teen pregnancy and substance abuse at younger and younger ages.

things that a few 16-18 year olds were doing 15 years ago are now being done by a large percentage of kids barely into puberty and in some cases as young as 6 or 7.

drinking, drugs, sex crime and anything else they shouldn't be doing. and it's happening ebcause they don't have any fear of potential consequences because they will either be light or non-existent.

these 3 girls are more than old enough to know whats right and wrong, but they had no fear of the consequences or just weren't bothered.

a three year old child knows the difference between right and wrong, but society in general seems to be so pre-occupied with finding someone else to blame that things are getting out of hand.

i blame the society you grew up in for your outlook on this.....

Zombrex

vibe666 wrote:

this might be considered a troll, but it's really not. things are getting out of hand and something has to change.

kids will do what they want because they ignore the consequences and don't or won't take responsibility for their actions, much like the rest of society.

so, how about this? anyone who gets pregnant in school should be forced to have the child in an assembly in front of the whole school.

see how many people take the chance then, when they can see the results. it's one thing seeing someone you go to school with pushing a pushchair down the road, but another thing entirely seeing and/or hearing the pain they go through during birth.

might teach them to keep their knees together for a while longer if they see the results first hand.

ummm .. how about this ... everyone who has a child out of wed-lock is forced to give up the child for adoption and then they are sent off to workhouse/prision run by the Church to be punished for their sinful behaviour until they have learnt their lesson ...

oh wait, wasn't that tried before ... :mad:

Eoghan-psych

Wicknight wrote:

ummm .. how about this ... everyone who has a child out of wed-lock is forced to give up the child for adoption and then they are sent off to workhouse/prision run by the Church to be punished for their sinful behaviour until they have learnt their lesson ...

oh wait, wasn't that tried before ... :mad:

I love you. Seriously though, excellent point.

For those is the "I don't want to pay for x" brigade - fine. Stop electing socially minded governments. Ireland is a democracy - you don't like the way social welfare is run? Fine - elect someone who'll run it the way you want.

vibe666

Wicknight wrote:

ummm .. how about this ... everyone who has a child out of wed-lock is forced to give up the child for adoption and then they are sent off to workhouse/prision run by the Church to be punished for their sinful behaviour until they have learnt their lesson ...

oh wait, wasn't that tried before ... :mad:

theres a big difference between suggesting that people properly discipline their children and take responsibility for their own actions and what happened in ireland in the past.

i'm not talking about burning kids with cigarettes or beating them with sticks, just reasonable discipline reflective of the severity of their actions when doing things they should be.

a bit of fear over the consequences of their actions might just make the majority of delinquent kids think twice about what they are doing.

nothing is going to stop these things from happening, no more than it did in the past, but you'd have to be blind not to see that the drop in parental discipline over the last 20 or 30 years is reflected in the rise of teen delinquency.

Sleepy

Eoghan-psych wrote:

For those is the "I don't want to pay for x" brigade - fine. Stop electing socially minded governments. Ireland is a democracy - you don't like the way social welfare is run? Fine - elect someone who'll run it the way you want.

So I get to elect the government now? Wow, I thought I only had a single transferable vote that would go towards electing the representative for my voting ward. I didn't know I could just choose a government and tell the rest of ye to go to hell. Fine, I elect myself as Taoiseach

This is a Humanities forum. We debate things here. If you can't take part in the debate, don't post. Frankly, I'd come to expect more intelligent posts from you.

BuffyBot

So I get to elect the government now?

No, but you get a say. If you feel strongly enough, start a campaign, maybe even a party and see how far your ideas get you. If they are as filled with common sense and practicality as you seem to think, you should be in power in no time...

Zombrex

vibe666 wrote:

just reasonable discipline reflective of the severity of their actions when doing things they should be.
...
but you'd have to be blind not to see that the drop in parental discipline over the last 20 or 30 years is reflected in the rise of teen delinquency.

You are talking about teenage parents as if they have committed an offense, as if having sex is a criminal act. A delinquent is a young person who disobeys the law or commits misdemeanor acts of delinquency. As someone who knows single parents and was raised by a single parent (not a teenage single parent mind.. but what is the difference except age) one I find it highly offensive that you associate single parents in the same bracket as yobs and thugs who are committing actual crimes and are actually acting in a delinquent fashion.

vibe666 wrote:

a bit of fear over the consequences of their actions might just make the majority of delinquent kids think twice about what they are doing.

That is completely ridiculous .. the idea that the kid would not mind getting pregnent and having to raise a child for the next 18 years but having to give birth in a public place would stop them. It is like the argument for the death sentence, saying that a murderer will comitt a murder if they only get life but not if they get death, as if the murderer is thinking "ah life in prision that isn't too bad".

The teenager doesn't think they are going to get pregnent in the first place, thats the point. Telling them that if they get pregnent they will be publically shamed is pointless because if they knew they were going to get pregnent the idea of raising a child for the next 2 decades would stop them in their tracks.

That is why far more sex education is needed to educate young people, especially girls, about sex and the risks involved, and why public shaming, or any form of punishment like that would have very little effect in decreasing teenage pregnecy rates, aside from the fact that it would completely immoral and illegal.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

You are talking about teenage parents as if they have committed an offense, as if having sex is a criminal act. A delinquent is a young person who disobeys the law or commits misdemeanor acts of delinquency. As someone who knows single parents and was raised by a single parent (not a teenage single parent mind.. but what is the difference except age) one I find it highly offensive that you associate single parents in the same bracket as yobs and thugs who are committing actual crimes and are actually acting in a delinquent fashion.

Underage sex is illegal. All three of the girls in question got pregnant whilst underage.

Sleepy

BuffyBot wrote:

No, but you get a say. If you feel strongly enough, start a campaign, maybe even a party and see how far your ideas get you. If they are as filled with common sense and practicality as you seem to think, you should be in power in no time...

Because people vote using common sense and practicality I suppose :rolleyes:

vibe666

Wicknight wrote:

You are talking about teenage parents as if they have committed an offense, as if having sex is a criminal act.

i don't know where you live, but here in Ireland underage sex is still a crime.

Wicknight wrote:

That is completely ridiculous .. the idea that the kid would not mind getting pregnent and having to raise a child for the next 18 years but having to give birth in a public place would stop them....<snip>....The teenager doesn't think they are going to get pregnent in the first place, thats the point. Telling them that if they get pregnent they will be publically shamed is pointless because if they knew they were going to get pregnent the idea of raising a child for the next 2 decades would stop them in their tracks.

the idea is that kids do thing they shouldn't because they don't think about the consequences of their actions. seeing someone they know suffering those consequences would make at least some of them think twice before jumping in and out of bed before they are old enough to handle these things properly.

having underage unprotected sex is illegal, immoral, irresponsible and just plain old stupid, and if more examples were made of the idiots who get themselves in these positions then it would happen a lot less. but as things stand everyone is telling them it's not their fault, and that someone else is responsible for something they did, not them, oh and here's some money and a free house, enjoy the drudgery of the rest of your life and don't worry about a thing while the hard working tax paying section of society pays for it.

Zombrex

vibe666 wrote:

i don't know where you live, but here in Ireland underage sex is still a crime.

it is a crime to have sex with someone below the age of consent because by definition they cannot consent to the sexual act .. the underage person is not committing a crime any more than a person being mugged is commiting the crime of robbery by being mugged

Zombrex

vibe666 wrote:

the idea is that kids do thing they shouldn't because they don't think about the consequences of their actions. seeing someone they know suffering those consequences would make at least some of them think twice before jumping in and out of bed before they are old enough to handle these things properly.

And seeing one of their friends have to raise a child wouldn't??

vibe666 wrote:

having underage unprotected sex is illegal, immoral, irresponsible and just plain old stupid,

You are right on the last two and completely wrong on the first two.

vibe666 wrote:

and if more examples were made of the idiots who get themselves in these positions then it would happen a lot less.

"Examples were made" ... jesus why don't we just put them in stocks and fire rotten veg at them

vibe666 wrote:

don't worry about a thing

If you think a teenage single mother doesn't worry about a think you know nothing at all about raising a child, being a parent, or having to stuggle on social welfare. You are talking complete dribble TBH

Rev Hellfire

Situations like these are self perpetuating, as sure as day follows night losers like these beget more losers.

As has been said before the real victims in all of this are the children.

I personally believe that someone if is not financially and/or emotionally capable of providing the basic needs of a child then the children should be taken from them and placed with someone who can. Now I’m not saying single mothers can’t raise children many do and do an admirable job of it, but the idea that the best place for a child is with the mother is not always a valid one.

[font=&quot]The only way to break this cycle is to break the relationship.[/font]

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

it is a crime to have sex with someone below the age of consent because by definition they cannot consent to the sexual act .. the underage person is not committing a crime any more than a person being mugged is commiting the crime of robbery by being mugged

Actually, they're still breaking the law. It's as illegal for two kids under the age of 17 to have sex as it is for one that's over and one that's under. Only in the case where one party is over 18 does it become statutory rape but it's still illegal for the kids to have sex.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

And seeing one of their friends have to raise a child wouldn't??

Obviously with these kind of idiots, not even watching their family members go through it works!

You are right on the last two and completely wrong on the first two.

I'd say he was right on all four counts tbh, but that's just my opinion, as the above is simply yours.

"Examples were made" ... jesus why don't we just put them in stocks and fire rotten veg at them

Might work on teenagers tbh. There's few things a teenager fears more than the ridicule of their peers.

If you think a teenage single mother doesn't worry about a think you know nothing at all about raising a child, being a parent, or having to stuggle on social welfare. You are talking complete dribble TBH

What we need is to get teenagers worried about becoming parents and therefore sensible enough not to have unprotected sex.

Again, it amazes me how willing people seem to be to allow young men to abandon their responsibilities towards their bastards so easily. The CSA needs to be given the manpower and teeth to make scumbags pay their dues to society.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

What we need is to get teenagers worried about becoming parents and therefore sensible enough not to have unprotected sex.

I totally agree ... but we need to do that through education, not through humilating and punishing those girls/boys who made a mistake, probably a mistake through miss-understanding and lack of education rather than malice or attempt to screw the system.

vibe666

Wicknight wrote:

I totally agree ... but we need to do that through education, not through humilating and punishing those girls/boys who made a mistake, probably a mistake through miss-understanding and lack of education rather than malice or attempt to screw the system.

we agree on something at least! something needs to be done, thats for sure. maybe we could keep the stocks for car theives, muggers and drug dealers.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

I totally agree ... but we need to do that through education, not through humilating and punishing those girls/boys who made a mistake, probably a mistake through miss-understanding and lack of education rather than malice or attempt to screw the system.

The system doesn't need to be screwed, it's already screwing the ordinary decent people of this country.

I don't believe that most of the single mothers claiming welfare and housing because they have 2/3 bastards by different fathers and have never worked a day in their lives get pregnant through malice or an attempt to screw the system, nor do I believe they do it through a failing of the education system.

They get pregnant because they're stupid, they're unlucky or (and this I believe to be the main factor) because they just don't give a damn. Their own childhoods were miserable because their parents were the exact same way. Let me ask you this: do you know a single girl who was brought up by good parents who has multiple bastards and no means of supporting them? I certainly don't. I know plenty of girls who've gotten pregnant early in life and made something of themselves despite the duality of the role of a working single mother. I respect these women because they've played the hand they were dealt, accepted responsibility for their actions (most would no longer refer to them as their mistakes) and gotten on with life.

I honestly think that if a single parent can't support their child it's the state's responsibility to make the child a ward of the court and ensure they receive a proper upbringing and education instead of the neglect and miseducation provided by unfit parents.

Those three girls would not have such pathetic lives if they'd had the benefit of one fit parent, never mind two.

vibe666

hit the nail on the head there sleepy.